United States v. Billy Fallin, Jr. , 463 F. App'x 273 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-50125 Document: 00511767422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 24, 2012
No. 11-50125
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BILLY JOE FALLIN, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-268-1
Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy Joe Fallin, Jr., appeals from his conditional guilty plea conviction for
aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He first
argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the
evidence found during a search of a pickup truck he was driving because the
Border Patrol agent who stopped the truck did not have a reasonable suspicion
that criminal activity was afoot. The area’s close proximity to the border, the
characteristics of the area and the vehicle, the agent’s extensive experience in
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-50125 Document: 00511767422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-50125
detecting illegal activity, Fallin’s behavior in nervously checking the mirrors to
keep an eye on the agent, and the information about recent illegal narcotics in
the area, viewed in totality and in the light most favorable to the Government,
provided a constitutional basis for stopping Fallin’s truck. See, e.g., United
States v. Vasquez, 298 F.3d 354, 357–58 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v.
Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 430 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Muniz-Ortega, 858
F.2d 258, 259–60 (5th Cir. 1988).
Fallin also contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the
safety valve provision set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to his
sentence. He argues that, despite the Government’s assertion otherwise, he
fulfilled his duty to truthfully debrief regarding his offense. Given the number
of inconsistencies between Fallin’s written proffer and the facts set forth in the
presentence report, the district court’s determination that Fallin was not
providing full disclosure was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146–47 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d
82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2