United States v. Jesus Bueno-Martinez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30182
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00137-WFN-36
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JESUS GUILLERMO BUENO-
MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Guillermo Bueno-Martinez (Bueno-Martinez) appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car pursuant to a
consent search, following which he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Bueno-Martinez contends (1) that the stop of his car, while
initially supported by reasonable suspicion, was unlawfully prolonged after he
produced valid identification; and (2) that he was advised of his rights only in
English, a language that he does not sufficiently comprehend.
1. There was reasonable suspicion to justify the initial Terry stop
because the officers’ collective knowledge provided reasonable suspicion that
Bueno-Martinez was his brother, for whom there was an outstanding arrest
warrant. See United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2007).
Detaining Bueno-Martinez for approximately eleven minutes to conclusively
determine his identity was reasonable because the officers “diligently pursued a
means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly
. . .” United States v. Torres-Sanchez, 83 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996), as
amended (citation omitted).
2. The district court’s underlying factual finding that Bueno-Martinez
voluntarily consented to the search of his car was not clearly erroneous. See
United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 2004). Bueno-Martinez was
not restrained, the atmosphere of the stop was relaxed, no weapons were drawn, the
2
agents informed Bueno-Martinez of his right to refuse consent, and the agents did
not threaten him with obtaining a search warrant if he did not consent. See United
States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1997).
“To the extent that reasonable minds could differ” regarding whether Bueno-
Martinez was sufficiently proficient in the English language to voluntarily consent
in that language “we cannot reverse the finding of the district court here under
clear error review.” United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d 494, 503 (9th Cir.
2004), as amended (citation omitted); see also United States v. Kaplan, 895 F.2d
618, 622 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that “evidence regarding the question of consent
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the fact-finder’s decision”) (citation
omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3