IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11169

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE DE JESUS SALAS-CRISOSTOMO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CR-15-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose De Jesus Salas-Crisostomo appeals his conviction and 210-month 

sentence for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

methamphetamine. Although Salas-Crisostomo pleaded guilty pursuant to a 

plea agreement, he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress evidence. As he did before the district court, Salas-

* 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

May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11169 Document: 00515411490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 18-11169

2

Crisostomo argues that reasonable suspicion did not support the traffic stop of 

his vehicle pursuant to section 544.004 of the Texas Transportation Code.

“For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an 

objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a 

traffic violation, occurred, or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.” 

United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005). Section 

544.004 of the Texas Transportation Code provides that an operator of a 

vehicle “shall comply with an applicable official traffic-control device [i.e., 

traffic sign].” TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 544.004(a). The Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals has held that a violation of § 544.004 occurs where one drives 

in the left-hand lane and there exists a “‘left lane for passing only’ sign . . . 

present within a reasonable distance of the traffic stop.” Abney v. State, 394 

S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 

Salas-Crisostomo does not contest that there was a “Left Lane for 

Passing Only” sign within a reasonable distance of the traffic stop performed 

by Agent Ronnie Lee Stiltner, Jr. Rather, he contends that he was in the 

process of passing a tractor-trailer at the time of the traffic stop. As such, he 

asserts that he did not violate § 544.004 of the Texas Transportation Code. 

Salas-Crisostomo does not dispute that approximately 14 seconds 

elapsed between the time he cleared a school bus and the time that Agent 

Stiltner initiated the traffic stop of his vehicle. According to Agent Stiltner’s 

testimony at the suppression hearing, Salas-Crisostomo was approximately 

200 to 225 feet from the tractor-trailer at the time he initiated the traffic stop. 

Agent Stiltner further calculated that it would have taken Salas-Crisostomo 

approximately 47 seconds traveling in the left-hand lane to come alongside the 

tractor-trailer. A review of the dash cam video does not call into question the 

accuracy of Agent Stiltner’s calculations. The dash cam video also supports 

 Case: 18-11169 Document: 00515411490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 18-11169

3

Agent Stiltner’s testimony that Salas-Crisostomo could have safely returned to 

the outside lane immediately after passing the school bus. In fact, SalasCrisostomo did just that when Agent Stiltner initiated the traffic stop. Because 

Salas-Crisostomo was not passing the tractor-trailer during the 14-second 

timeframe he was driving in the left lane, he has failed to advance a credible 

alternative reason for driving in the left lane. Rather, the 14 seconds that 

elapsed between Salas-Crisostomo’s clearance of the school bus and Agent 

Stiltner’s initiation of the traffic stop provided Agent Stiltner with reasonable 

suspicion that a violation of § 544.004 had occurred or was about to occur. See 

Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430. Viewing the evidence in light most favorable 

to the prevailing party, in this case the Government, leads us to conclude that 

the district court did not err in denying Salas-Crisostomo’s motion to suppress 

evidence. See United States v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2015). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-11169 Document: 00515411490 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2020