United States v. Ramos-Loera

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 3, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 03-50312
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AVELINA RAMOS-LOERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-02-CR-204-ALL
______________________________________________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Avelina Ramos-Loera (Ramos) entered a conditional guilty
plea to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. She
contends on direct appeal that the district court erred in
refusing to suppress evidence found by and statements made to a
Border Patrol agent after an illegal stop of the vehicle driven
by Ramos.
In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress, the district court’s findings of fact are accepted
unless clearly erroneous, but the district court’s ultimate

-- 1 of 2 --

2
conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement
action is reviewed de novo. United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d
423, 427 (5th Cir. 2001). This court must review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Id.
The district court’s factual findings regarding whether
Agent Jose Castillo had reasonable suspicion to stop Ramos’s
vehicle were not clearly erroneous. The stop occurred close to
the border, in a remote and unpopulated area known for smuggling,
shortly after the activation of a sensor. Id. at 428-29. The
agent indicated a knowledge of the area and smuggling activities.
See United States v. Aldaco, 168 F.3d 148, 151-52 (5th Cir.
1999). The agent was familiar with the people who usually
traveled on this road and did not recognize Defendant-Appellant.
In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court
did not err in concluding that Agent Castillo had reasonable
suspicion to stop Ramos’s vehicle. The judgment of the district
court is therefore AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --