United States v. Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: 24-50076
• Status: Unpublished

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 co- defendant 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surveillance for drug dealing, and did not mention stopping at that house when asked about her itinerary. 3 Although unpublished and nonprecedential, Lujan is thorough, well-reasoned, and persuasive given near-identical facts.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.