United States v. Benavides-Roldan

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40072
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO ALBERTO BENAVIDES-ROLDAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-1626-2
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Alberto Benavides-Roldan appeals from the denial of a
motion to suppress following his conviction for transporting
undocumented aliens within the United States for purpose of
commercial advantage or private financial gain in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Benavides-Roldan argues that
the Border Patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the
vehicle in which he was a passenger because the stop was based on
unreliable information provided by an anonymous tipster.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 06-40072
-2-
A border patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make a
temporary investigative stop of a vehicle if the agent is aware
of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences
from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the
vehicle's occupant is engaged in criminal activity. United
States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). An anonymous
tip can provide the necessary reasonable suspicion. United
States v. Ceniceros, 204 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2000). In
determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists, the courts
must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
stop. United States v. Espinosa-Alvarado, 302 F.3d 304, 306 (5th
Cir. 2002).
In light of our recent decision in United States v.
Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210, 214-15 (5th Cir. 2007), and considering
the totality of the circumstances in the light most favorable to
the Government, we conclude that the district court committed no
error in holding there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. As
in Hernandez, the events occurred in an area close to the border
and a notorious alien smuggling route. Moreover, the tip
provided specific information regarding the vehicle and that
description was validated when agents encountered the vehicle.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.