United States v. Landeros

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40792
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO LANDEROS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-98-CR-576-1
--------------------
November 1, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Landeros, Jr., appeals from his conditional guilty
plea for possession with the intent to distribute approximately 440
pounds of cocaine. He challenges the adverse portion of the
district court’s suppression ruling concerning the search of the
livestock trailer. We AFFIRM.
Landeros fails to challenge the primary conclusion of the
district court, namely, that Landeros lacked standing to challenge
the search of the trailer which he did not own. His failure to
challenge this aspect of the ruling results in the issue’s being
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
No. 00-40792
-2-
abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993).
Even if Landeros had standing, he has not shown error by
the district court. Landeros argues that the stop of his vehicle
towing the livestock trailer was done without reasonable suspicion
and thus violative of the Fourth Amendment. The district court
alternatively found that the Border Patrol agent had articulated a
sufficient factual basis to support the stop. From our independent
review, we agree. See United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 448
(5th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).
Border Patrol Agent Paffen testified that he observed
through the slats of the trailer that the cattle at the front of
the trailer were standing higher than the cattle at the back of the
trailer. The height difference struck Paffen as unusual from his
past encounters with livestock trailers. Further, he had knowledge
of incidents of hidden compartments located in trailer floors.
Additionally, Paffen noticed the unusually even distribution of hay
and manure on the trailer floor. Reasonable suspicion existed for
Paffen to stop Landeros in order to inspect the trailer. See
United States v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 857, 873 (5th Cir. 1998).
Landeros argues that his consent for the law enforcement
officers to inspect the trailer was invalid. The district court
credited the testimonies of the law enforcement agents over
Landeros’ testimony and found that Landeros’ consent was valid. We
conclude that this finding by the district court is not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Tompkins, 130 F.3d 117, 123 (5th
Cir. 1997).
No. 00-40792
-3-
As part of his appellate argument directed at the
suppression ruling, Landeros asserts that the evidence fails to
demonstrate his guilty knowledge of the cocaine hidden in the
trailer. Landeros conditionally pleaded guilty, preserving his
right to appeal the suppression ruling. In general, a valid guilty
plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects, which includes a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v.
Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 392 (5th Cir. 2000). His assertion is
without merit.
Landeros has not shown error by the district court in its
suppression ruling.
AFFIRMED.