# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 40045 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Felipe De Jesus Gutierrez,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 612

- 1

**___________ ___________________**  Before **Barksdale** , **Graves** , and **Oldham** , Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  ***** Felipe De Jesus Gutierrez conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (defining principals) , reserving his right to contest the denial of his motion to sup press evidence

. H e challenges the district court’s denial at the end of an

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 20, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40045 Document: 00516974482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023No. 23

- 40045

2 evidentiary hearing of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle and his post

- arrest confession . (Gutierrez testified at the hearing.) For the contested denial of a suppression motion, our court reviews “the factual determinations for clear error and the legal conclusions de

novo ”. United States v. Powell , 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (cita tion omitted). T he evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party , in this instance the Government

. See United States v. Gibbs , 421 F.3d 352 , 356

– 57 (5th Cir. 2005)

. First, Gutierrez challenges the court’s finding reasonable suspi cion justif ied the stop of his vehicle. “ Reasonable suspicion is a low threshold, requiring only a minimal level of objective justification.” United States v. Alvarez , 40 F.4th 339 , 345 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). T he officers
respon ded to a tip contain ing a range of details relat ed to the planned drug transaction, including predictive information

. See Alabama v. White , 496 U.S. 325, 332 (1990) (highlighting importance of tip’s prediction of future conduct) ; Powell , 732 F.3d at 369 (“ Reaso nable suspicion can be formed by a confidential informant ’ s tip so long as the information is marked by indicia of reliability. ” (citation omitted))

. The officers independently corroborated the tip and observed predicted activities. Based on the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion supported the stop of Gutierrez’ vehicle. E.g. , Alvarez , 40 F.4th at 345 (“ Reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances . . . .” (citation omitted)). Next, Gutierrez asserts the search of his vehicle violate d the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement

. We hold the officers had probable cause to search Gutierrez’ tractor

- trailer when a dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in it

. S ee United States v. Ned , 637 F.3d 562 , 567 (5th Cir. 2011) ( permitting warrantless searches of automobiles if supported by probable cause); Resendiz v. Miller , 203 F.3d 902 , 903 (5th Cir. 2000) (“A drug

Case: 23-40045 Document: 00516974482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2023No. 23

- 40045

3 sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause for a search.”).
N or did Gutierrez show the officers’ actions converted the stop into
an arrest. See United States v. Sanders , 994 F.2d 200, 206

– 07 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[U] sing some force on a suspect, pointing a weapon at a suspect, orderi ng a suspect to lie on the ground, and handcuffing a suspect

— whether singly or in combination

— do not automatically convert an investigatory detention into an arrest requiring probable cause. ” ). Finally , Gutierrez contends his confession was involuntary and not sufficiently attenuated from his claimed illegal arrest to be admissible. T he testimony at the suppress ion hearing establishes Gutierrez : initiated the meeting with the officers following his initial request for an attorney ; was never threatened or coerced ; and was aware of his rights but waived them. Gutierrez’ confession was therefore voluntary. See Wyrick v. Fields , 459 U.S. 42, 45

– 46 (1982) ( explaining once suspect invokes right to counsel, government may not interrogate him further unless he initiates ) ; United States v. Mendez , 885 F.3d 899, 9 10

– 11 (5th Cir. 2018 ) (concluding statement was voluntary where defendant was twice advised of Miranda rights, voluntarily waived them, there was no evidence of physical coercion, and defendant was not threatened)

. And, b ecause we hold Gutierrez’ arrest was constitutional, his confession was also not the fruit of an illegal arrest. See United States v. McCowan , 469 F.3d 386, 390 (5th Cir. 2006) ( ruling arrest permissible when officers have probable cause to conclude suspect committed offense)

. Gutierrez’ contention that the delay in presenting him to a magistrate judge was unreasonable is likewise incorrect because the

reasons for delay , including case

- processing, were permissible

. E.g. , United States v. Boche

- Perez , 755 F.3d 327, 337 (5th Cir. 2014) ( “ [T]he McNabb

– Case: 23-40045 Document: 00516974482 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2023No. 23

- 40045

4 Mallory doctrine tolerates delays related to legitimate law enforcement procedures . . . .”).
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-40045 Document: 00516974482 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/20/2023