United States v. Ureste-Meza

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-50580
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50274 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 20, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rafael Robles-Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with _____________

No. 22-50576 _____________

United States of America,

Juan Jose Morales-Salazar,

Defendant—Appellant, Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2023

No. 22-50274 c/w Nos. 22-50576, 22-50580 consolidated with

_____________

No. 22-50580 _____________

Edgar Ureste-Meza,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-859-1 ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Rafael Robles-Hernandez, Juan Jose Morales-Salazar, and Edgar Ureste-Meza were indicted for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). They moved to suppress evidence regarding their being discovered in the United States, contending they were seized unlawfully in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied their motions, and each entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the adverse suppression ruling.

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

2 Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2023

No. 22-50274 c/w Nos. 22-50576, 22-50580 They contend the court erred by denying their suppression motion because the Border Patrol agent who stopped the truck in which they were riding lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and the unlawful stop led to defendants’ discovery. E.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975) (explaining factors for determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to execute stop). When considering the denial of a suppression motion, the district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; its factual findings, for clear error. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 33 F.4th 807, 810–11 (5th Cir. 2022). “[W]e may affirm the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress on any basis established in the record”. United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 2013). We need not consider whether the court erred in its reasonable- suspicion analysis because “[t]he ‘body’ or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest”. United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting INS v. Lopez-Medoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984)). AFFIRMED.