IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40585

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ENRIQUE URQUIZO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-722-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Enrique Urquizo entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of 

conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens within the United States, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(I), reserving the right to appeal the 

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of alien smuggling 

discovered during an investigatory vehicle stop initiated by a United States 

Border Control agent. “When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress 

* 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

April 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40585 Document: 00515384881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 19-40585

2

evidence, this Court reviews factual findings for clear error and the ultimate 

constitutionality of law enforcement action de novo.” United States v. 

Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014).

In the context of a roving border patrol, agents “may detain vehicles for 

investigation only if they are aware of specific, articulable facts, together with 

rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that 

the vehicle is involved in illegal activities.” United States v. Garza, 727 F.3d 

436, 440 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

factors to be considered include (1) the area’s proximity to the border; (2) the 

characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agents’ experience 

in detecting illegal activity; (5) the driver’s behavior; (6) particular 

characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking of 

aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number of passengers in the vehicle 

and their appearance and behavior. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 

873, 884-85 (1975).

The first factor, proximity to the border, is a “paramount factor.” Garza, 

727 F.3d at 441 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, 

the agent first observed the vehicle approximately one mile north of the border, 

well within the 50-mile range supporting an inference that the trip began at 

the border. See United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 428 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Further, the area’s characteristics and the agent’s information contributed to 

reasonable suspicion because the agent testified that he knew Highway 83 was 

a common route for smuggling. See United States v. Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210, 

211-12 (5th Cir. 2007). The agent’s experience also contributed to reasonable 

suspicion in this case because he was a 10-year veteran of the Border Control 

with extensive experience in patrolling Highway 83. See United States v. 

 Case: 19-40585 Document: 00515384881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 19-40585

3

Ramirez, 839 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Chavez-Chavez, 

205 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2000).

Further, the driver’s unusually low speeds—approximately 15 miles 

below the speed limit—contributed to reasonable suspicion, as did his other 

unusual driving behaviors, such as increasing speed and passing several 

vehicles, apparently in an attempt to avoid apprehension. See United States 

v. Zapata-Ibarra, 212 F.3d 877, 883-84 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, the 

characteristics of the vehicle—dirty, heavily laden in the back, and bearing 

temporary license plates despite being an older model—contributed to 

reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 582 (5th Cir. 

1999); United States v. Villalobos, 161 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1998); United 

States v. Upchurch, No. 93-8402, 1994 WL 14138, 1 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 1994) 

(unpublished). The factors observed by the agent provided a “composite 

picture” sufficient to create reasonable suspicion in his mind. United States v. 

Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40585 Document: 00515384881 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2020