United States v. De La Torre-Mercado ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50165 Document: 00516619951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50165
Summary Calendar FILED
January 23, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Teodoro De La Torre-Mercado,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-223-1
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Teodoro De La Torre-Mercado appeals his
conviction following a bench trial for illegal reentry after removal. After he
was initially arrested by an El Paso County Sheriff’s deputy, he was
transferred to the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol. While in that custody,
De La Torre-Mercado admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico and was here
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50165 Document: 00516619951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2023
No. 22-50165
without proper documentation. This was confirmed by an immigration
check. On appeal, he contends that the evidence obtained by Border Patrol
agents—his verbal statements, identification, and immigration records—
should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal seizure, and that the
district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress that evidence.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United States v. Rodriguez, 33 F.4th 807, 810–11 (5th Cir. 2022).
Appellant concedes that, even if we assume that the deputy’s initial
stop was illegal, his contention that the district court should have suppressed
his identity evidence is foreclosed. See United States v.
Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2013); United States
v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999). Appellant’s attempt
to distinguish our precedent on the basis that the initial stop involved a state
versus a federal actor is meritless. See Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206,
215 (1960) (“To the victim it matters not whether his constitutional right has
been invaded by a federal agent or by a state officer.”). Although Appellant
contends that Roque-Villanueva was wrongly decided, we may not overrule a
prior decision of another panel in the absence of an intervening contrary
decision by this court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. See United
States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2