Case ID: f-appx_262/html/0591-01.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. Juan Manuel RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40173
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 23, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Oscar A. Vela, Jr., Law Offices of Oscar A. Vela Jr., Laredo, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Manuel Rangel was convicted, following a bench trial, of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Rangel was sen-fenced to 37 months of imprisonment and to a three-year term of supervised release. He argues on appeal the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana because the border patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of his vehicle. He also argues that the district court erred in finding that he gave the agents consent to search the trunk of his vehicle.

Under the totality of the circumstances and in consideration of the factors set forth in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884-85, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975), especially the proximity to the border, the sensor alert, and the characteristics of the vehicle, the border patrol agents’ stop of Rangel’s vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion. See id., United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir.2001). Additionally, based on the district court’s credibility determination and because there are sufficient factors to support consent, there is no clear error regarding the district court’s determination that Rangel gave the agents consent to search the trunk of his vehicle. See United States v. Estrada, 459 F.3d 627, 633-34 (5th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, Rangel’s conviction and sentence are 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.