* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-40155

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AMADOR GARZA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(L:95-CR-235)

January 7, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Amador Garza appeals his conviction for possession with intent

to distribute marijuana. At issue is the district court’s denial

of a motion to suppr ess evidence, namely marijuana discovered in

Garza’s vehicle during a stop by a United States Border Patrol-2-

agent. We find that the border patrol had a reasonable suspicion

to conduct the investigatory stop and that the district court did

not err by refusing to suppress the evidence. We affirm.

Garza showed up in the wrong place at the wro ng time in a

white Chevrolet 4x4 Suburban stuffed to the doors with marijuana.

Border Patrol Agent Luis Ramo n Caballero, who discovered the

contraband, had been spending the end of his shift looking for

illegal aliens in Hebbronville following an anonymous tip. During

his search, Caballero heard reports o n his patrol radio of

suspicious activity in the area involving known drug smugglers.

As Caballero stopped and prepared to turn north onto Highway 16 in

Hebbron ville, he noticed Garza’s Suburban, spattered with dead

butterflies and splas hed with chalky caliche mud. Although the

vehicle’s rear windows were tinted, the front windows were not, and

Garza made eye contact with Caballero, who was riding in a marked

Border Patrol truck. Caballero testified that Garza appeared

“really surprised” to see him, that Garza stared at the officer for

a long time, and that when he saw Caballero looking back, Garza’s

eyes widened noticeably. Garza put both hands on the wheel,

apparently attempting to appear normal, and stared straight ahead

as he drove off.

Caballero did not recognize the vehicle or Garza as local to

Hebbronville, and a quick check revealed that the Suburban was not

registered. The agent began to follow Garza north on Highway 16.

The officer called checkpoints on adjacent highways, and agents-3-

reported that they had not seen Garza pass. Caballero later

testified that this, along with the caliche mud, indicated to him

that the truck had been traveling through ranches on dirt roads, a

common practice among smugglers to avoid detection. As Caballero

followed Garza north on Highway 16, he saw Garza watching him

through the side mirror. Garza crossed the yellow center line

twice, and slowed down to allow Caballero to pass. Caballero

pulled Garza over, and as he approached the vehicle, he smelled

marijuana. Peering in the vehicle, Caballero could see marijuana

in both the front seat and the back. Officials arrested Garza and

recovered 862 pounds of marijuana from the vehicle.

Although the grand jury indicted Garza for four drug offenses,

the government dropped all charges except possession with intent to

distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Garza

filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, and the district

court held an evidentiary hearing . At the hearing, Caballero

testified about the circumstances that gave rise to his suspicion.

From the bench, the court denied Garza’s motion to suppress,

holding that the Caballero had reasonable suspicion for the stop

and search and that the marijuana was admissible. Garza entered a

conditional plea in an effort to preserve his challenge to the

denial of the motion to suppress. The district court sentenced

Garza to a sixty-month prison term and ordered him to serve a fiveyear term of supervised release and pay a $50 mandatory assessment.

On appeal, Garza does not challenge the sufficiency of the-4-

evidence to convict him; he only challenges the admissibility of

the marijuana. Garza contends that under the circumstances

Caballero and the Border Patrol did not have a reasonable suspicion

that he was smuggling, and that the stop and search therefore

violated the Fourth Amendment. Garza further urges that the

marijuana is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” inadmissible evidence

obtained from an unconstitutional search.

We employ a two-tiered standard in reviewing the denial of a

motion to suppress, reviewing the district court’s findings of fact

for clear error and its ultimate conclusion s about

constitutionality de novo. United States v. Chavez-Villarreal , 3

F.3d 124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993). We review the district court’s

determination of reasonable suspicion de novo. Ornelas v. United

States

,

___ U.S.

___, ___, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911

(1996). Reasonable suspicion is considerably easier for the

government to establish than probable cause. U nited States v.

Wangler

, 987 F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 1993). However, we will

uphold the district court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress

if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it.

United States v. Tellez , 11 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993), c er t

.

denied , ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1630, 128 L. Ed. 2d 354 (1994).

A Border Patrol agent conducting a roving patrol in a border

area may make a temporary, investigative stop of a vehicle if

specific, articulable facts and the rational inferences drawn from-5-

those facts reasonably warrant suspicio n that the vehicle is

engaged in illegal activities. United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S.

411, 421-22, 101 S. Ct. 690, 697, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981); United

States v. Ca steneda , 951 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir. 1992). In

a ssessing the evidence, we examine the totality of the

circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law

enforcement. Cortez , 449 U.S. at 418, 101 S. Ct. at 695; United

States v. Diaz , 977 F.2d 163, 164-65 (5th Cir. 1992). Among the

factors we consid er are the characteristics of the area, its

pro ximity to the border, usual traffic patterns, the agent’s

previous experience with criminal activity, characteristics of the

vehicle, erratic driving and the behavior of the driver. U nited

States v. Brignoni-Ponce

, 422 U.S. 873, 884-85, 95 S. Ct. 2574,

2582, 45 L. E d. 2d (1975). In considering the totality of the

circu mstances, the absence of any particular factor will not

dictate whether suspicion was re asonable. U nited States v.

Cardona

, 955 F.2d 976, 980 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 506 U.S. 942,

113 S. Ct. 381, 121 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1992).

Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that Agent

Caballero had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop

of Garza’s vehicle. Many general factors contributed to the

agent’s suspicion. Caballero had been with the Border Patrol in

Hebbronville for three years and knew that drug traffickers

frequented the area. Hebbronville is close to the Mexican border,-6-

a bout 60 miles from Laredo and 160 miles from Brownsville.

Furthermore, about two we eks before Caballero stopped Garza,

authorities confiscated about one thousand pounds of marijuana from

a similar 4x4 Suburban abandoned near Hebbronville.

Caballero testified during the eviden tiary hearing that a

confluence of suspicious events the afternoon of the stop also

heightened his suspicion. As the agent was ending his shift, he

overheard several radio communications about smuggling activity.

Less than an hour before Caballero sto pped Garza, Border Patrol

agents stopped Jos e Bazan, a known narcotics smuggler who often

drives a “lead vehicle or a decoy vehicle,” near Hebbronville.

Agents also stopped a white pickup tru ck, which matched a

description of a typical “load vehicle,” traveling with Bazan. The

truck had been recently purchased and exhibited no markings. The

two young drivers told Border Patrol agents a story that agents

believed to be fabricated. Minutes later, officials found Yolanda

Cruz, another known drug smuggler, near the gate to the Mastena

Ranch with the keys to that gate. Cruz also gave a less-thancredible account of what she was doing at the ranch, suggesting

that she was picking herbs fo r medicine by the gate. Cruz had a

reputation as a “shepherd” for tr affickers, and the agents

suspected that she had been there to open the gat e for smugglers

trying to travel on ranch roads to avoid detection. Caballero knew

that both Bazan and Cruz were from Rio Grande City; he suspected

that they were working together and that something was going down.-7-

In this context, Garza crossed the path of Agent Caballero.

The butterflies evident on the front of his Suburban indicated that

Garza had d riven some distance recently, and the caliche mud

suggested that Garza had been traveling on ranch roads at least

part of the way. Caballero knew most of the residents of

Hebbronville and did not recognize Garza. Garza’s surprised look,

and the fact that he was driving an unregistered 4x4 Suburban

nearly identical to one found packed wi th marijuana two weeks

before, compounded with the fact that agents at checkpoints on

other highways had not seen Garza , gave Caballero reasonable

suspicion that Garza was engaged in criminal activity.

For the reasons articulated by the district court and

discussed herein, we find that under the totality of the

circumstances Caballero had reaso nable suspicion to conduct an

investigatory stop of Garza’s vehicle. The agent’s stop and search

simply did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the district court

did not err by admitting the evidence produced by the stop. We

AFFIRM.