* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 31, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41679

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JAVIER REYNA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-02-CR-378)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Javier Reyna appeals from the denial of a motion to

suppress following his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). At issue is whether a Border Patrol

Agent had reasonable suspicion to stop Juan Javier Reyna’s vehicle,

leading to Reyna’s conviction.2

No authority need be cited for our two-tier standard of review

for suppression rulings: findings of fact are accepted unless

clearly erroneous; the ruling on the constitutionality of the

contested conduct is reviewed de novo ; and the evidence presented

at the suppression hearing is viewed in the light most favorable to

the prevailing party.

A Border Patrol Agent conducting a roving patrol may make a

temporary investigative stop of a vehicle if the Agent is aware of

“specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from

those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the vehicle's

occupant is engaged in criminal activity. United States v.

Brignoni-Ponce

, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); see also United States v.

Cortez

, 449 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1981). In determining whether a

reasonable suspicion exists, co urts look to the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the st op. E .g., United States v.

Espinosa-Alvarado

, 302 F.3d 304, 306 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 537

U.S. 1094 (2002). The district court concluded: the area in which

the stop took place was known for illegal activity; the Agent saw

two vehicl es traveling in tandem, and his experience taught him

that vehicles engaged in smuggling almost always travel in tandem

while other vehicles in the area almost never do; the Agent,

familiar with the area and its usual traffic, did not recognize

either of the two vehicles; both vehicles had bed covers which were

not used by those who regularly used the road, but which made it3

possible to conceal cargo; and, prior to the stop, another Agent

had reported to the Agent conducting the stop that the driver of

the stopped vehicle was “looking all around”. A review of the

s uppression hearing demonstrates that these findings are not

clearly erroneous.

It also a ppears that the district judge made an additional

important finding: the Border Patrol Agent had observed that

Reyna’s vehicle was riding low, as if carrying a heavy weight.

Although the district judge acknowledged evidence contradicting

this claim, he appeared to find that the Agent testified truthfully

to his observations. In any event, viewing the hearing evidence in

the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that the

Agent did observe that Reyna’s vehicle appeared to be carrying a

heavy weight. Reviewing de novo the district court’s resolution of

Reyna’s motion to suppress, we agree that the facts recited above,

when viewed in their totality, would give rise to a reasonable

suspicion. E .g., United States v. Aldaco

, 168 F.3d 148, 151-52

(5th Cir. 1999) (road’s reputation for smugglin g adds to

reas onableness of suspicion); U nited States v. Morales

, 191 F.3d

602, 604 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied sub nom. Chacon Morales v.

United S tates , 528 U.S. 1177 (2000) (agent’s experience is

important in determining reasonableness of suspicion); United

States v. Orozco , 191 F.3d 578, 582 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied

sub nom. G utierrez-Orozco v. United States

, 528 U.S. 1144 (200 0 )4

(appearance of vehicle, “most notably” that it appeared to be

heavily-loaded, added to reasonableness of suspicion).

AFFIRMED