United States v. Juan Romo-De La Rosa

Case: 11-50220 Document: 00511766098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 23, 2012
No. 11-50220
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JUAN FIDENCIO ROMO-DE LA ROSA, also known as Juan Roma-De La Rosa,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CR-20-1
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Fidencio Romo-De La Rosa challenges his conditional-guilty-plea
conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, which resulted in a sentence
of, inter alia, 46-months’ imprisonment. Romo maintains the district court erred
in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer, after
identifying Romo as a suspect in an attempted burglary, requested his name and
date of birth. He claims this questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50220 Document: 00511766098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2012
No. 11-50220
against self-incrimination because he had not been advised of his rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
On appeal from denial of a motion to suppress, issues of law are reviewed
de novo; findings of fact, for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. E.g., United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381,
384-85 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Armijo v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 177(2010). Assuming those findings are not clearly erroneous, whether the words
or actions of law enforcement constituted “custodial interrogation” for Miranda
purposes is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Chavira, 614 F.3d 127, 132
n.7 (5th Cir. 2010).
There is no evidence the officer knew–or grounds for contending she
should have known–that her requests for Romo’s name and date of birth were
“reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response”. Rhode Island v. Innis,
446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). Moreover, evidence of Romo’s identity, such as his
record as a deported felon, is not subject to suppression as “fruit of the poisonous
tree”. E.g., United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999).
In sum, Romo has failed to identify any evidence obtained by the officer’s
questioning that is subject to suppression.
AFFIRMED.
2