* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

_________________

No. 96-41164

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ALFREDO DURON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(M-96-CR-117-4)

August 21, 1997

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

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Alfredo Duron appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress “any evidence discovered” as a result of his

arrest for drug distribution. Duron contends that this “evidence”

should have been suppressed because the arresting officers lacked
-2-

probable cause to arrest him. We affirm.

I

On May 22, 1996, Sergeant Antonio Sanchez (“Sanchez”), an

investigator with the Texas Department of Public Safety (Narcotics

Service) (“DPS”), observed Adolfo Moreno-Rios (“Rios”), a suspected

drug trafficker, driving a red Ford pickup truck. Sanchez

testified in district court that he saw Rios meet with a

confidential informant (“CI”) in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart

store. 

The CI later told Sergeant Jose Fidencio Guzman (“Guzman”), a

Texas DPS officer who testified at the suppression hearing, that

Rios and the CI had discussed Rios’s supplying seventy pounds of

marijuana to a buyer. The CI had agreed to supply the load

vehicle, a red Ford Taurus, which was to be retrieved from a local

Burger King. After establishing surveillance of the Burger King on

May 23, 1996, an officer watched the red pickup truck drop Duron at

the restaurant. A male, later identified as Jose Angel Rios

(Rios’s son), drove the truck. An officer watched Duron enter the

red Taurus; the surveillance team observed Duron driving the Taurus

to Rios’s residence and parking in the rear of the residence in an

area surrounded by a high wooden fence.

Approximately thirty minutes after arriving at Rios’s

residence, the surveillance team observed the red Taurus leaving

the residence. The vehicle proceeded in the direction of a local

gas station. The team lost the vehicle briefly, but subsequently
1 Duron specifically preserved his right to appeal the

district court’s ruling on his suppression motion. 

-3-

reacquired it parked at the gas station. The team had been unable

to see the driver of the vehicle during the trip to the station and

the driver was not in the vehicle when the officers arrived at the

station.

During the surveillance, Guzman spoke with the CI on a mobile

telephone. The CI reported that the marijuana purchasers suspected

that police officers were in the area and would therefore not

retrieve the car and the marijuana. Based on this information,

Guzman ordered the officers to verify that the car contained

marijuana. The officers found approximately seventy-five pounds of

marijuana in the trunk of the car. Guzman instructed an officer to

drive the red Taurus to the police station.

A few minutes after the Taurus left the gas station, members

of the surveillance team observed the red Ford pickup truck leave

Rios’s residence with three occupants. Shortly thereafter, the

truck drove into the gas station. Guzman instructed the officers

to detain the truck. After the occupants of the truck were

identified as Adolfo Moreno-Rios, Jose Angel Rios and Duron, Guzman

ordered Sanchez to arrest them.

After the district court denied Duron’s motion to suppress,

Duron entered a conditional guilty plea1 to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. The
2 Duron never specifies what “evidence” should have been

suppressed. There is some mention in the suppression hearing

transcripts of statements Duron allegedly made at the police

station after receiving Miranda warnings, but Duron does not

mention these statements, or explain their content, in his

appellate brief. In any event, because we find that the officers

had probable cause to arrest Duron, “any evidence discovered” as a

result of his arrest need not have been suppressed.

-4-

district court imposed an eighteen month jail sentence, a three

year term of supervised release, and a $100 assessment. Duron

appeals the district court’s denial of his suppression motion,

arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him and

that therefore “any evidence discovered” as a result of his arrest

should have been suppressed because such evidence is the product of

an illegal arrest.2

II

“Appellate review of a district court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress based on testimony at a suppression hearing is subject to

the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Gonzales, 79

F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 117 S. Ct. 183,

136 L. Ed. 2d 122 (1996). We review questions of law de novo, but

we accept factual findings unless the district court’s findings

were clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the

law. Id. Furthermore, we view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the party prevailing below, except where such a view

is either not consistent with the district court’s findings or is

clearly erroneous considering the evidence as a whole. Id. 
-5-

We review de novo the district court’s ultimate legal

conclusion that the police officers had probable cause to arrest

Duron. United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1994).

Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the

arresting officer are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable

caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed

and the arrested person is the guilty person. United States v.

Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 698 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 944,

113 S. Ct. 388, 121 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1992). Mere association with a

known criminal does not, by itself, create probable cause for

arrest. Id. In order to find probable cause based on association

with persons engaging in criminal activity, some additional

circumstances from which it is reasonable to infer participation in

criminal enterprise must be shown. Id.

We find such additional circumstances in this case. Duron was

not just seen in the company of a suspected drug trafficker.

Officers saw Duron being transported to the location of the load

vehicle in the red pickup truck in which Rios had discussed a drug

transaction with the CI. In addition, officers observed Duron

driving the load vehicle to Rios’s residence, where the vehicle was

to be loaded with marijuana. When the officers later opened the

truck of the load vehicle at the gas station, they discovered over

seventy pounds of marijuana. Finally, Duron accompanied Rios and

his son to the gas station))the location of the marijuana-laden
-6-

load vehicle))in the red pickup truck on the day of the scheduled

drug transaction. Based on this evidence, all of which was known

to Guzman at the time he ordered Duron’s arrest, a reasonable

officer could have believed that Duron was involved in the planned

distribution of over seventy pounds of marijuana. The district

court therefore did not err in denying Duron’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.