Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50675/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50675-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerardo Montes-Nunez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50675

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO MONTES-NUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-14

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a bench trial, Gerardo Montes-Nunez was convicted of having 

been unlawfully present in the United States after removal, and he was 

sentenced to 10 months in prison. On appeal, Montes-Nunez, who was arrested 

following a traffic stop, claims that the evidence obtained by Border Patrol 

agents—including his identity-related statements, fingerprints, photograph, 

and A-file—should have been suppressed as fruits of what the district court 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50675 Document: 00513452190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-50675

2

determined was an illegal seizure. Thus, he contends that the district court 

erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress.

As an initial matter, Montes-Nunez waived any challenge regarding his 

A-file through his counsel’s statement at the suppression hearing that 

Montes-Nunez was not “seeking to suppress his A file.” Thus, his claim on this 

point is “entirely unreviewable.” United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 

(5th Cir. 1995).

The Government has moved for summary affirmance on the ground that 

the sole issue raised by Montes-Nunez is foreclosed. This court has held that

even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation, evidence of identity is not 

suppressible. See United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 351 

(5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 

1999). Accordingly, as Montes-Nunez concedes, his argument is foreclosed. 

See Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d at 346. Further, although Montes-Nunez 

argues that Roque-Villanueva was wrongly decided, one panel of this court may 

not overrule a prior decision of another panel in the absence of an intervening 

contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United 

States Supreme Court. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 

2014).

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50675 Document: 00513452190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016