United States v. Gonzalez

Opinion

Case: 24-50076 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 24-50076 February 2, 2026 Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raul Gonzalez,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:23-CR-98-2

______________________________

Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Raul Gonzalez pleaded guilty to multiple charges stemming from his participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy. He argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop because the police officer purportedly lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50076 Document: 99-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2026

No. 24-50076

the stop until a K-9 unit arrived. We review the district court’s fact-findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. 1 In a separate appeal brought by Nikky Nicole Lujan, Gonzalez’s codefendant who was driving at the time of the traffic stop, this court characterized the existence of reasonable suspicion to extend the stop as a “close call.” 2 But it ultimately found reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances—Lujan had a prior drug conviction, had just left a house under surveillance for drug dealing, and did not mention stopping at that house when asked about her itinerary. 3 Although unpublished and nonprecedential, Lujan is thorough, well-reasoned, and persuasive given near-identical facts. Gonzalez’s brief does not address that opinion or make meaningfully different arguments from those the Lujan panel considered. 4 Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. 5 AFFIRMED.

_____________________

1 See United States v. Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d 327, 333 (5th Cir. 2014).

2 United States v. Lujan, No. 24-50030, 2025 WL 673435, at *8 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025) (per curiam), cert. denied, No. 24-7465, 2025 WL 2824057 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2025).

3 See id.

4 See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 417 n.22 (5th Cir. 2005).

5 See Lujan, 2025 WL 673435, at *1–8.