United States v. Solis ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40029 Document: 00516597428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40029
FILED
Summary Calendar
January 4, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ilse Ivon Solis,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-40088
Summary Calendar
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mercedes Galvan,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-40029 Document: 00516597428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
No. 22-40029
c/w No. 22-40088
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 6:19-CR-30-2, 6:19-CR-30-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following their conditional guilty pleas to conspiracy to possess with
the intent to distribute methamphetamine and individual sentencings, Ilse
Ivon Solis and Mercedes Galvan appeal the district court’s denials of their
motions to suppress. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this
court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the
ultimate constitutionality of the actions by law enforcement de novo. United
States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified on denial of reh’g,
622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). The evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, here the Government, Pack, 612 F.3d at 347,
and the district court’s ruling will be upheld “if there is any reasonable view
of the evidence to support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838,
841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The appellants do not challenge the validity of the initial traffic stop
but argue that the arresting officer, Sgt. Randy Thumann, did not develop
further reasonable suspicion to prolong their detention beyond the initial
purposes of the stop and that their subsequent consent to search given during
their illegally prolonged detention was invalid. The appellants urge that Sgt.
Thumann’s actions were based on little more than the recent registration of
an older vehicle and purportedly vague travel plans, noting that, when the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-40029 Document: 00516597428 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
No. 22-40029
c/w No. 22-40088
records check came back clear, Sgt. Thumann knew only that the defendants
were residents of Laredo who were traveling with unsecured children on I-10
in an older model car that was newly registered en route to Houston, which
facts they contend were not sufficiently suspicious, especially as they
exhibited no nervousness and provided consistent statements to
Sgt. Thumann. The appellants acknowledge that Sgt. Thumann also knew
that the car’s license plate had traveled across the border from Mexico earlier
that morning but assert that there was no evidence proving at that time that
the car itself or the women in it had done so and thus that any suspicion on
Sgt. Thumann’s part was merely a hunch which did not justify additional
investigation.
Viewing the evidence in the aggregate and in the light most favorable
to the Government, the district court did not err in determining that
Sgt. Thumann had developed reasonable suspicion of additional criminal
activity while investigating the original stop based on the appellants’
traveling along the drug corridor of I-10 in a newly registered older model
vehicle that he knew had crossed the border from Mexico only hours earlier
and where he believed that the defendants had lied about having come from
or traveled to Mexico. See Pack, 612 F.3d at 347, 360; see also United States
v. Andres, 703 F.3d 828, 834 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Lopez-Moreno,
420 F.3d 420, 431 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d
753, 759 (5th Cir. 1999). Sgt. Thumann’s suspicion was not a mere hunch
but was reasonably based on his knowledge of the license plate check and the
proximity in time from the border crossing to the stop; contrary to the
appellants’ suggestion, he did not need additional proof that the car itself or
the women in it actually drove across the border. See United States v. Estrada,
459 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2006); Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d at 759; see also
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274, 277 (2002).
3
Case: 22-40029 Document: 00516597428 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
No. 22-40029
c/w No. 22-40088
In sum, Sgt. Thumann had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
apart from the initial traffic violation to continue the stop for the relatively
short additional three-minute period during which he obtained consent to
search from the appellants. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696,
709 (1983); see also Pack, 612 F.3d at 362. The district court therefore
properly denied the defendants’ motions to suppress. See Michelletti, 13 F.3d
at 841.
Solis’s appointed counsel on appeal, David Klein, has moved for leave
to withdraw and for the appointment of substitute counsel. The motion to
withdraw and for appointment of new counsel is GRANTED. The Clerk
shall appoint new counsel to advise Solis of her right to file a petition for
certiorari.
The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
4