Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0432-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Lopez LARA, also known as Juan Francisco Martinez Reyes, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11756 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 9, 2018
    
      James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brandon Elliott Beck, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Enrique Lopez Lara appeals his conditional guilty plea to one count of making a false claim to United States citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. His plea agreement reserved his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence regarding his true identity as a citizen of Mexico.

Lopez Lara argues on appeal that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He contends that federal agents detained him at an airport without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed. He concedes, however, as he did in the district court, that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. This court has held that even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation, evidence of an alien’s identity is not suppressible. See United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 2013); Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d at 346. Thus, Lopez Lara’s argument is in fact foreclosed. See Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d at 346.

Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.