United States v. Cienfuegos-Paz , 130 F. App'x 682 ( 2005 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 10, 2005
No. 04-30794
Summary Calendar
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AUDON CIENFUEGOS-PAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(5:03-CR-50130-1-SMH)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Audon Cienfuegos-Paz appeals his conditional guilty-plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He
contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
the cocaine seized in conjunction with the traffic stop that led to
his arrest. The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed under
a two-tiered standard: findings of fact are reviewed for clear
error; conclusions of law, de novo. E.g., Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 694-97 (1996). We view the evidence in the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this instance, the
Government. E.g., United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 239 (5th
Cir. 2000).
First, Cienfuegos-Paz claims that, after the trooper
determined he was not driving impaired and the records check came
back negative, the trooper’s continued questioning about illegal
activity resulted in an unconstitutional prolonged detention, which
tainted his subsequent consent to search the vehicle. Cienfuegos-
Paz’s documentation was returned to him before the trooper asked
for consent to search the vehicle; and, although the trooper did
ask Cienfuegos-Paz whether there was anything illegal in the
vehicle, the trooper did not accuse Cienfuegos-Paz of any criminal
activity that would permit his regarding the request to search as
a continuation of the initial detention. Cf. United States v.
Santiago, 310 F.3d 336, 337-43 (5th Cir. 2002) (finding consent to
search vehicle invalid where, immediately prior to search request,
the officer asked whether driver knew that road was used to
transport drugs); United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 198-203
(5th Cir. 1999), corrected on denial of rehearing, 203 F.3d 883(5th Cir. 2000) (finding consent to search involuntary where police
officers retained suspect’s license and rental papers). In
addition, nothing in the record indicates Cienfuegos-Paz did not
feel free to leave when his documentation was returned to him.
Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding
2
Cienfuegos-Paz’s consent was voluntarily given during a consensual
encounter following the end of a valid traffic stop. See United
States v. Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d 431, 442-43 (5th Cir. 2003).
For his other claim, Cienfuegos-Paz asserts his consent to
search was exceeded in scope and duration when, after the manual
search of the vehicle revealed no illegal contraband, the trooper
detained him pending the arrival of a canine unit to conduct a
further search of his vehicle. Cienfuegos-Paz executed a written
consent form allowing the search of his vehicle. That form did not
limit the scope of the search to a cursory look. Moreover, at no
time did Cienfuegos-Paz protest the scope of the search or
otherwise attempt to withdraw his consent, even though the consent
form stated he could terminate the search at any time. Thus, the
district court did not clearly err in finding the search was within
the scope of Cienfuegos-Paz’s consent. See United States v.
Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 874(1995).
AFFIRMED
3