United States v. Burciaga-Jimenez

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50966 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO BURCIAGA-JIMENEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (P-97-CR-100-1)

June 15, 1998 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Burciaga-Jimenez (Burciaga) entered a conditional

guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to

distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals his conviction,

challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress

the marijuana found in his automobile at the time of his arrest.

Specifically, he contends that the Border Patrol’s search violated

his Fourth Amendment rights because the Border Patrol did not have

a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped his

* Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4. vehicle.

This court employs a two-tiered standard of review in

evaluating a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress:

findings of fact are accepted unless clearly erroneous and

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. United States v. Chavez-

Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993). This court reviews

the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing in the light

most favorable to the prevailing party. United States v. Ponce, 8

F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).

The totality of the evidence demonstrates that prior to the

Border Patrol stopping Burciaga’s automobile, the Border Patrol was

aware of specific, articulable facts together with rational

inferences from those facts. These facts and inferences raised a

reasonable suspicion that Burciaga’s automobile was involved in

illegal activities. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.

873, 884-85 (1975); United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 722

(5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the district court did not err in

denying Burciaga’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.