IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40548

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN M. AGUIRRE-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:10-CR-2621-2

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan M. Aguirre-Flores entered a conditional plea to one count of

possession with intent to distribute a quantity in excess of five kilograms of

cocaine. Aguirre-Flores’s plea was conditioned on the right to appeal the district

court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession. He contends that his

confession was involuntary due to the unreasonable detention of him and his

family, as well as threats that his wife would be charged with a crime if he did

not confess.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 19, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2012
No. 11-40548

We review the voluntariness of a confession de novo and the factual

findings underlying a voluntariness determination for clear error. United States

v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 460-61 (5th Cir. 2004). A finding is clearly erroneous if the

reviewing court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th

Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining

whether a defendant has validly waived his Miranda rights, we must look at the 1

totality of the circumstances that surround the interrogation. United States v.

Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir. 1994). If, under the totality of the circumstances,

the statement results from a free and rational choice, then the statement is

voluntary. Bell, 367 F.3d at 461. A defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights is

effective only if the relinquishment of the right to remain silent is free of

“intimidation, coercion, or deception.” United States v. Cardenas, 410 F.3d 287,

293 (5th Cir. 2005).

The record indicates that any delay was due to the nature of the

investigation at the United States border, and necessary to determine which

occupants of the vehicle were involved in the smuggling of the cocaine into the

country. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 544 (1985). 

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that any delay on the part of the

United States Custom and Border Patrol (CBP) officers was for the purpose of

extracting a confession from Aguirre-Flores, or that the delay caused him to

confess. See United States v. Mullin, 178 F.3d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Additionally, Aguirre-Flores’s desire to extricate his wife from prosecution does

not render his confession involuntary since the record indicates that the CBP

officers had a good faith basis to arrest his wife. See Allen v. McCotter, 804 F.2d

1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Diaz, 733 F.2d 371, 375 (5th Cir.

1984). Given the totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence that AguirreMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

1

2

Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2012
No. 11-40548

Flores’s confession was the result of “intimidation, coercion, or deception.” 

Cardenas, 410 F.3d at 293; Bell, 367 F.3d at 461. Accordingly, the district court

did not err in denying his motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2012