Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02768/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Alfred Maza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl Lb 0 

U<1ittd Scat:<.~ (outc of Appeab 

Temh Cin:1,it UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 14 1QQO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee , 

v. 

ANTHONY ALFRED MAZA, 

Defendant-Appellant . 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

No. 88-2768 

(D.C. No. CR-88-13} 

(District of New Mexico} 

ORDER AND .JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON , BRORBY, and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

By indictment Anthony Alfred Maza was charged with unlawfully 

possessing with an intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms 

of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 

21 U. S.C. § 84l(a}(l} and 21 U.S.C. § 84l(b}(l}(C}. Maza filed a 

motion to suppress the use at trial of the 163 pounds of marijuana 

taken from the pickup truck he was driving at the time of his arrest. Hearing was held on that ·motion, at whi6h time the arresting officer testified. No other witness testified. The district 

court · denied the motion to suppress. Maza then entered a 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not· 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 1 
conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the 

district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He was then 

sentenced to fifty-one months imprisonment under the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984, 18 u.s.c. §§ 3551, et · seg. Maza appeals. We 

affirm Maza's conviction, but vacate the sentence imposed and 

remand for resentencing. 

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Faran Segotta, a 

New Mexico State Police Officer, testified that while driving a 

marked patrol car he came up behind a 1984 GMC pickup truck with a 

camper shell. Both vehicles were going in a northerly direction 

on Interstate 25 about 60 miles south of Raton, New Mexico . Both 

cars were in the left-hand lane for northbound traffic, and, according to Officer Segotta, he followed the other vehicle for 

. about one mile, at which time the driver of the preceding vehicle 

turned into the right-hand lane, but gave no turn signal. As Officer Segotta overtook and passed the other vehicle, he saw out of 

his rear view mirror that in a minute or so the other driver 

turned into the left-hand lane to pass another vehicle in the 

right-hand lane, and that again the driver did not give a turn 

signal. The officer testified that he determined to stop the 

other vehicle and give the driver a traffic citation for failure 

to use his turn signal when changing lanes. To accomplish this, 

Officer Segotta proceeded on ahead and pulled over onto the 

shoulder. When the other vehicle passed him, he pulled in behind 

and activated his red light. The other driver stopped, and Officer Segotta walked to the stopped vehicle prepared to talk to 

· the driver. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 2 
The window by the driver's seat _was already down. The driver 

was the defendant, Maza. The officer first asked for Maza's 

driver license. The camper bore Arizona license plates. Officer 

Segotta testified that he detected very quickly the odor of 

marijuana. A search of the compartments in the camper shell 

revealed 163 pounds of marijuana, at which time Maza was placed 

under arrest. 

After his arrest, Maza was issued a traffic citation by Officer Segotta for violation of the state lane change statute, N.M. 

Stat. Ann. § 66-7-325(A) (1978). Officer Segotta stated that he 

advised Maza that he could ask for a trial, or sign the citation 

and pay a fine by mail, in which event he would be admitting his 

guilt. Maza signed the citation. 

The New Mexico statute prohibits lane changing without 

signalin·g where i•other traffic may be affected.·" (emphasis added). 

Counsel's argument at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and 

in this court, is that no "other traffic" was affected by Maza's 

lane changing without a signal. Such argument overlooks the fact 

that Officer Segotta and a second vehicle, which Maza overtook 

without using the turn signal, were in the immediate area and 

conceivably could have been affected. Actually, this argument 

misses the point. We are not here concerned with whether Maza in 

fact violated the New Mexico statute. The initial question is 

whether under the described circumstances Officer Segotta acted 

reasonably when he stopped the Maza vehicle. United States v. 

Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988). In this regard, Officer 

Segotta testified that on numerous occasions he stopped vehicles 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 3 
for changing lanes without making a turn signal. We agree with 

the district court that under the described circumstances Officer 

Segotta had cause to stop Maza for a traffic violation and acted 

reasonably when he stopped the vehicle. 

Further, we agree with the district court that the evidence 

did not show that the stop was pretextual in nature. Officer 

Segotta testified that the only reason he . stopped defendant's 

vehicle was his belief that the defendant had violated a state 

statute concerning lane changing. There is really nothing to support the suggestion that Segotta stopped the defendant's vehicle 

on a "hunch." Officer Segotta ' s suspicions were first aroused 

when he detected the odor of marijuana emanating from Maza's 

vehicle. This case is distinguishable from United States v. 

Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988), where, inter alia, the 

district court indicated disbelief of the officer's testimony and 

granted a motion to suppress. In the instant case, in denying the 

motion to suppress the district judge indicated that he was 

"impressed by the forthright and honest manner in which he 

[Segotta] has testified." In sum, the district court did not err 

in denying the motion to suppress. 

The sentence in the instant case was imposed before the 

Supreme Court upheld the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the 

Guidelines1 promulgated pursuant thereto. At the time, many lower 

courts had held the Act unconstitutional. The district court in 

the instant case sentenced Maza to fifty-one months followed by 

1 United States Sentencing Commission, 

[hereinafter referred to as Guidelines]. 

-4-

Guidelines Manual 

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 4 
three years of supervised release under the Act and Guidelines, 

and, at the same time, also sentenced Maza to four years 

imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release, "in 

the event the Sentencing Guidelines are found to be 

unconstitutiona1. 112 On appeal, Maza challenges the district 

court's adherence to the Guidelines. 

Prior to sentence, the probation department conducted an 

investigation and filed a presentence report, to which report the 

defendant excepted only to the statement that there was a "false 

compartment" in defendant's truck. Further, as we understand it, 

the probation officer and Maza agreed that due to the amount of 

marijuana involved, 163 pounds, the "base offense level" of 

twenty-two was applicable, which called for a sentence of between 

forty-two and fifty-one months. However, prior to sentence, 

counsel filed with the court a memorandum in which they asked that 

the offense level be reduced by two because Maza in a letter to 

the court had indicated his "acceptance of responsibility" and 

that he should also have received additional "credit" because he 

played only a "minor" or "minimal" role in the total picture. 

"Acceptance of responsibility" and "minor" or "minimal role" visa-vis a "major role" are matters covered in the Guidelines. 

However, so far as we can tell from the record before us, none of 

these matters was addressed by the district court. Accordingly, 

though the judgment of conviction is affirmed, the sentence is 

2 The Guidelines were held to be Constitutional in Mistretta v. 

United States, U.S. , 109 S. Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed. 2d 714 

(1989) (decided January 18, 1989). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 5 
• 

vacated and the case remanded so that the district court may address the reasons advanced by the defendant why he should not have 

been sentenced to fifty-one months imprisonment. We are not suggesting that the sentence should be reduced, but the mitigating 

reasons advanced by the defendant in his memorandum to the 

district court should be addressed on their merits. 

Judgment of conviction affirmed . 

Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing. 

-6-

Entered for ·the Court 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2768 Document: 01019966354 Date Filed: 03/14/1990 Page: 6