Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02207/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rigoberto Bencomo-Ortiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED 

v. 

FILED 

Uaiced Scaca C:OUrc of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Tenth Circuit ·· 

AUG 8 1991 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2206 

(D. New Mexico) 

(D.C. No. CR 89-386-01) 

REYNALDO GARCIA-BENCOMO, ) 

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RIGOBERTO BENCOMO-ORTIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2207 

(D. New Mexico) 

(D.C. No. CR-89-386-02) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 1 
Reynaldo Garcia-Bencomo ("Garcia" hereinafter) and Rigoberto 

Bencomo-Ortiz ("Bencomo" hereinafter), pled guilty and were 

convicted of conspiracy to possess over 100 kilograms of marijuana 

with intent to distribute. In addition, after a bench trial, 

Garcia was convicted of unlawfully possessing a machine gun, 

possession of an unregistered firearm, and possession of a firearm 

after having been convicted of an offense, the punishment for 

which exceeded 1 year imprisonment. Both were sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment of 60 months followed by a 5 year period of 

supervised release. Garcia's terms for the multiple counts of 

conviction were all concurrent. On appeal, both defendants 

challenge their convictions on the ground that the court erred in 

denying their motions to suppress physical evidence discovered and 

statements made at the time of their arrest. In particular, the 

motion sought suppression of $15,000 in cash and a machine gun 

which were seized from a pickup truck driven by Garcia, in which 

Bencomo was a passenger, and 487 pounds of marijuana secreted 

nearby. We affirm. 

As a preliminary matter, we agree with the government that 

Bencomo failed to preserve his right to appeal. The record 

discloses that his guilty plea was not conditional, and he did not 

reserve "in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to 

review of the adverse determination on any specified pretrial 

motion," as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(a)(2). In addition, 

at the hearing on the suppression motion, the following colloquy 

occurred: 

THE COURT: Mr. Harris do you have anything to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 2 
present in connection with the standing of your client, 

Rigoberto Bencomo? 

MR. HARRIS: None. We don't claim any standing. 

R. Vol. II at 44. 

Accordingly, we reject Bencomo's appeal, and affirm his 

conviction. 

The facts with respect to Garcia are as follows. On August 

12, 1989, sensors placed by border patrol agents along the 

international boundary between the United States and Mexico in 

Hidalgo County, New Mexico, signalled a border crossing into the 

United States. Secondary sensors along a remote trail known to 

the authorities to be used by smugglers at that point confirmed 

the entry. Upon investigation, law enforcement officers discovered 487 pounds of marijuana which, according to tracks at the 

scene, had been brought to that point by three or four horses. 

Border patrol agents and a Hidalgo County deputy sheriff set up a 

surveillance. Several hours later a Chevrolet pickup truck 

entered the area and stopped. The driver, Garcia, got out of the 

truck, climbed a windmill located at that spot, scanned the area, 

and whistled. The passenger, Bencomo, got out of the truck and 

began looking through the brush. During his reconnaissance of the 

area, Bencomo discovered the concealed officers. Thereafter the 

two men were arrested and held for the arrival of other officers. 

Subsequently, Garcia was advised of his Miranda rights in Spanish, 

after which he indicated his willingness to speak with the agents. 

Garcia then signed a waiver of rights and spoke to the officers. 

He also gave permission for the officers to search the truck. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 3 
The agents searched the truck. They found an M-16 rifle, a 

cannister of AK-47 ammunition, and $15,000 in cash. Garcia 

admitted that he was in the area to pick up the marijuana which 

had been brought in by horseback. The rifle, the money, and the 

ammunition were to be given to the person who was to be waiting 

with the marijuana as payment for the drugs. 

At the suppression hearing Garcia testified that he was the 

owner of the truck, but his testimony was rambling and 

inconsistent. Documents found in the glove compartment of the 

truck included a certificate of title in the name of a Charles 

Michael Wait and a reassignment of title in the name of Andrew L. 

Ortiz. Garcia's name did not appear on any document. He claimed 

that he purchased the truck for $2,500 cash and received a 

receipt, but he was unable to produce the receipt. 

Garcia further testified that he had loaned the truck to one 

Roberto Veles for several days prior to the trip to New Mexico and 

that Veles had left the truck at a Kentucky Fried Chicken stand in 

Phoenix, Arizona, for Garcia to pick up. Garcia testified that 

when he picked up the truck at the Kentucky Fried Chicken stand a 

machine gun and $15,000 in cash were in the truck. He claimed no 

ownership in either the machine gun or the cash. 

After listening to the examination and cross-examination of 

Garcia, and the testimony of agent Melani Dziadulewicz, the 

district court ruled that Garcia had failed to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he had standing to contest the 

search of the vehicle. He expressly found that Garcia was not a 

credible witness, stating: "[h]is testimony is riddled with 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 4 
inconsistencies and contradictions, and I just don't place any 

credibility in him, whatsoever." R. Vol. II at 43. 

The issue of whether a person has a legitimate expectation of 

privacy in a searched area is a question of law and is reviewed de 

novo. The facts upon which the legal conclusion is based are 

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 444 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 

S.Ct. 1318 (1991). Credibility determinations by the district 

court must be accepted on appeal unless clearly erroneous. United 

States v. Erickson, 732 F.2d 788, 790 (10th Cir. 1984). 

The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. 

They establish for purposes of our review that Garcia did not 

prove any ownership interest in the pickup truck. That leaves 

only an expectation of privacy based on mere control, or arising 

on some other ground. "[W]e have held that mere control is not 

sufficient to establish a protectable Fourth Amendment privacy 

right .... " United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1249 

(10th Cir. 1991). See United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885, 887-

88 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1375 

(10th Cir. 1984). In his testimony at the suppression hearing 

Garcia did not attempt to establish some other basis which would 

support an expectation of privacy, such as possession based upon 

permission by the owner. Furthermore, Garcia did not possess a 

privacy interest in the machine gun or in the cash located in the 

pickup truck because he denied having any ownership interest in 

those items. See United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d at 1250-51 

n.8. "[C]ars are not to be treated identically with houses or 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 5 
• apartments for Fourth .Amendment purposes." United States v. 

Jefferson, 925 F.2d at 1251 (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 

128, 148 (1978)). 

Our careful review of the testimony at the suppression 

hearing convinces us. that Garcia did _not present evidence of a 

sufficient interest in the pickup truck or in the machine gun or 

cash to trigger a recognition of Fourth Amendment privacy rights 

by this court. Therefore, we reject Garcia's argument that the 

district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. 

Alternatively, we hold that even if Garcia had an expectation of 

privacy in the vehicle, there was probable cause for his arrest, 

and he consented to the search. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2207 Document: 010110131466 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 6