Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03283/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noe Lopez-Vargas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Noe Lopez-Vargas, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: August 9, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Noe Lopez-Vargas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,

and to one count of criminal forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. He was

sentenced by the district court1

 to 108 months’ imprisonment and was ordered to

forfeit $12,000 in illegal proceeds. On appeal, he challenges the admissibility of the

evidence against him and the length of his sentence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Entry ID: 2076308
-2-

I.

On November 24, 2003, federal agents were investigating possible narcotic

activity at a residence in Omaha, Nebraska (the residence). As the agents engaged in

surveillance of the residence, they observed a white Mercury with Arizona plates

leave the residence, drive to a nearby business, and return to the residence. The

federal agents had information that the Mercury contained proceeds from narcotics

dealings and might be returning to Arizona soon. A few hours later, the Mercury

departed Omaha, driving west on Interstate 80. The federal agents notified state

officials about the vehicle and their investigation, and at approximately 9:00 p.m.,

Trooper Neil Trantham of the Nebraska State Patrol stopped the vehicle for speeding.

Armando Medina-Constantino was driving the vehicle, and Lopez-Vargas was a

passenger. Both were Mexican nationals illegally in the United States and both spoke

little English.

Using a cellular phone, Trooper Trantham contacted the federal Immigration

and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) for translation services. Through the

interpreter, Medina-Constantino verbally consented to a search of the vehicle.

Trooper Trantham then filled out a Spanish-language search consent form, which he

read to Medina-Constantino. Medina-Constantino, after following along and

occasionally correcting Trantham’s pronunciation, signed the consent form. MedinaConstantino was apparently unaware at the time that federal agents were investigating

him and monitoring the traffic stop.

ICE Special Agent Henry Anton, who was fluent in Spanish, then arrived at the

scene and questioned both Medina-Constantino and Lopez-Vargas about their

immigration statuses. After discovering that they were illegally in the United States,

Special Agent Anton placed them in custody. Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) Agent Donato Sikorski then arrived at the scene. After being told that a toy

pinball machine was found in the trunk, Agent Sikorski expressed his desire to move

Appellate Case: 05-3283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Entry ID: 2076308
-3-

the vehicle to a location where tools were available that could be used to open the

pinball machine.

The vehicle was then towed to the Nebraska State Patrol headquarters, where

Agent Sikorski opened the pinball machine and found $12,000 in cash therein. When

Agents Sikorski and Anton subsequently questioned Lopez-Vargas about the money,

he waived his Miranda rights and made several inculpatory statements. After the

district court denied his motion to suppress, Lopez-Vargas pleaded guilty to one count

of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and

to one count of criminal forfeiture. On appeal, he argues that the search was unlawful

because it exceeded the scope of the consent given by Medina-Constantino, and that

the district court erred in failing to grant him a two-level downward departure for his

role in the offense.

II.

On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, we review for clear error the

factual findings of the district court, and we review de novo the legal determination

that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. United States v. Roberson, 439 F.3d

934, 939 (8th Cir. 2006). The scope of a consensual search is determined by what

“the typical reasonable person [would] have understood by the exchange between the

officer and the suspect.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991). If it is

objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that the scope of the suspect’s consent

permitted him to open a particular container, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.

United States v. Brown, 345 F.3d 574, 580 (8th Cir. 2003).

Lopez-Vargas concedes that Medina-Constantino consented to the initial search

of the vehicle conducted by Nebraska State Patrol officers. See Appellant’s Br. at 18.

He argues, however, that the later search by federal agents at the Nebraska State Patrol

headquarters was not within the scope of the consent. The district court rejected this

Appellate Case: 05-3283 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Entry ID: 2076308
2

The Honorable Thomas B. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-4-

argument, adopting the magistrate judge’s2

 factual finding that “Medina-Constantino

unequivocally gave consent for Trooper Trantham to enter and search the entire

vehicle.” Report & Recommendation of June 18, 2004, at 8. The district court further

adopted the finding that “neither the form nor Medina-Constantino expressly limited

the consent to search,” concluding that “the goverment has met its burden of showing

at least by a preponderance of the evidence, Medina-Constantino unconditionally

consented to a search of the vehicle.” Id. at 8-9.

We conclude that these factual findings are not clearly erroneous. MedinaConstantino signed a form agreeing that Trooper Trantham, with the assistance of

other agents, could search the car. While this form identified the car based on its

location when the form was signed, it did not limit, at least not in clear terms, MedinaConstantino’s consent only to searches that occurred at that location. As a result, an

objectively reasonable officer could believe that Medina-Constantino’s consent

extended to opening the pinball machine after the car had been towed to the State

Patrol headquarters.

Lopez-Vargas argues that the district court ignored several facts: (1) MedinaConstantino’s difficulty in communicating in English, (2) the marijuana cigarette

found in the vehicle, (3) the lack of Miranda warnings given until after MedinaConstantino was arrested, (4) Medina-Constantino’s lack of experience with law

enforcement, and (5) his lack of awareness of the larger federal investigation. While

these facts might be relevant to a determination of the voluntariness of MedinaConstantino’s consent, Lopez-Vargas has conceded, as noted above, that voluntary

consent to search was given. Moreover, none of these facts have any significant

relevance in determining the scope of the consent. Accordingly, we conclude that the

Appellate Case: 05-3283 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Entry ID: 2076308
-5-

district court did not commit clear error in finding that Medina-Constantino

voluntarily consented to a search of the Mercury without limitation.

III.

We review for clear error the district court’s determination whether a particular

defendant is entitled to a minor participant role reduction under Section 3B1.2 of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1022

(8th Cir. 2006). Lopez-Vargas carries the burden to prove that he is entitled to a

reduction. United States v. Johnson, 358 F.3d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir. 2004). In cases

in which the defendant is one of several participants in a conspiracy, he must show

that his culpability was relatively minor compared to that of the other participants and

that he was not deeply involved in the offense. See id. at 1018-19; United States v.

Bush, 352 F.3d 1177, 1182 (8th Cir. 2003). 

The record indicates that Lopez-Vargas was aware that he was transporting

proceeds from a narcotics conspiracy, that he had been involved in several prior trips

in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that he was trusted enough to travel across the

country with $12,000 in cash. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Lopez-Vargas was not entitled to a minor role reduction. Cf.

United States v. Zuleta, 427 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curium) (affirming

denial of minor role reduction because defendant had served as a courier on more than

one occasion). 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3283 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Entry ID: 2076308