Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60623/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60623-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Del Castillo-Barron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60623

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN DEL CASTILLO-BARRON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Martin Del Castillo-Barron was convicted of illegal reentry of a 

previously deported aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) and

(b)(2). He was found in the United States during the course of a traffic stop 

when a police officer learned that occupants of the stopped vehicle, including 

Del Castillo-Barron, were not United States citizens and possessed no 

documents authorizing their presence in the country.

On appeal, Del Castillo-Barron argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained following the traffic stop. In 

support of his argument, Del Castillo-Barron contends that the officer 

conducting the stop exceeded his jurisdiction under Mississippi state law 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60623 Document: 00513452566 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-60623

2

because the stop occurred at a location where the officer lacked authority to 

act.

The relevant question is whether the officer, in conducting the traffic 

stop, violated the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 

409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992). Issues regarding local law-enforcement jurisdiction 

do not govern in a federal criminal action. Id.; United States v. HernandezAcuna, 202 F. App’x 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2006). Del Castillo-Barron does not 

challenge the district court’s finding that the traffic stop conformed with the 

standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The district court, 

therefore, properly denied the motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60623 Document: 00513452566 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016