### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 1, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1472 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C . Do ck et No . 0 4 -0 0 0 1 9 -C R- WH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla intiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RUBEN TINOCO-FAJ ARDO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 1, 200 5) Be fo re H U L L , W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ruben Tinoco-Faj ardo appeals his convi ction and sent ence for illegal reen tr y int o th e U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

8 U
. S. C. se ct ion132 6. T ino co -F aj ar do2

co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it ( 1) de nie d T ino co -F aj ar do’ s m oti on to s uppr es s e vid en ce obt ai ne d duri ng a w ar rantl es s arr es t, and ( 2) de nie d T ino co Fa ja rd o ’s m o t i o n fo r as en t en ce re du ct i o nfo r a cc ep t an ce o f r es p o n s i b i l i ty. W e
a f f i rm. T ino co -F aj ar do, apa sse nge r on a G re yhoun d bu s th at

ha d st oppe d in Mob ile , A la

bam a, w as que sti one d by U nit ed S ta te s B or de r Patr ol a ge nts conductin g an operation to v erify the citizenship of the bus passengers. A fter Tin oc o- Fajard o h adex it edth e b us , th e ag en ts ask edto see hi s i de nt ifi cat io n. Ac cording to Agent Burnette, the arresting officer , T inoco-Faj ardo appeare d
ne rv ou s, s po ke in bro ke n En gl is h, an d d idno t h av e an y id en ti fic at io n wi th hi m . Tin oc o- Fajard o b oa rd edth e b us to ret rie ve hi s i de nt ifi cat io n, b ut di d n ot return. A ge nt B ur

ne tte the n bo ar de d th e bus, obs er ve d T ino co -F aj ar do “ gr ab bin g hi s be lon gin gs, ” an d a ske d T ino co -F aj ar do i f he ha d f ound his ide nti fi catio n. T ino co Fa j ar do r ep lie d th at

he ha d no t, but

w he n A ge nt B ur

ne tte a ske d T ino co -F aj ar do if he ha d any

oth er ba gs o n th e bus, T ino co -F aj ar do c onc ed ed that he “ m ay

be ” ha d a ba g un de r the bus
. T ino co -F aj ar do and A ge nt B ur ne tte e xit ed

the bus tog ethe r, and A ge nt Burn ette r etri ev ed

T ino co -F aj ar do’ s ba g f

ro m und er the bus
. A ge nt B ur

ne tte
as ke d T ino co -F aj ar do i f “ w e [the a ge nts ] c oul d go thr oughhis ba gs and f ind his3

identification, and he said y es.” When Agent Burnette f oundrec eipts for wir e tr an sf er s to H ondura s, T ino co -F aj ar do a dm itt ed that he se nt the tr an sf

er s to his fam ily in H ondura s and a dm itt ed to be ing in the U nit ed

S ta te s il le ga lly
. T ino co Fajard o was th en arre st ed
. T ino co -F aj ar do f

ir st c ont en ds tha t he w as se iz ed w he n A ge nt B ur

ne tte board ed the bus to loo k f

or him , be ca

use he did

not r ea sona bly be lie ve him se lf fr ee to le av e. A cc or din g to T ino co -F aj ar do, he “ sil en tly a cquie sc ed ” to A ge nt Burn ette ’ s auth or ity

“ fr om the m om en t A ge nt B ur

ne tte w en t onthe bus to re tr ie ve him
. ” T ino co -F aj ar do arg ue s th at the Bo rd er

P atro l of fi ce rs did not have
re as ona ble sus pic ionto j ust if

y asto p, and tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have
supp res se d a ny evi de nc e g at he redas f ru itof t ha t al le ge dl y

il le ga l s ei zu re. U nde r the F ourth A m en dm en t, ase iz ur e oc curs w he n ar ea sona ble pe rs on
w oul d have be lie ve d he w as not f re e to l eave . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Me nde nha ll, 446 U. S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870 , 1877 (1980). When the “ totalityof circ um stances indicate that an encounter has becom e too intrusi ve to be classified as a brief seizure, the encounter is an arr est and probable cause is required.” U nited States v. E spino sa-G uerra, 805 F.2d 1502 , 1506 (11th Cir. 1986). T he rec ord shows that the district court did n ot clearly err in finding that Tinoco-Fa j ardo wa s not seized whe n Ag en t Bu rn et te bo ard edth e b us to ch eckon Tin oc o- Fajard o.4

N oth ing that A ge nt B ur

ne tte did on the bus w oul d have le d ar ea sona ble person to believe that he was not free to leave. Unlike the defe ndant in EspinosaGuer ra, Tinoco-Fa

j ardo spoke so m e E nglis h, and the re cord does not s how that A ge nt B ur

ne tte , unl ike the a ge nt i n E spi nosa -Gue rr a, a ske d or ge sture d f

or Tinoco-Fa

j ardo to follow him

off the bus. B ecause A gent Burnette never asked T ino co -F aj ar do t o f

oll owhim

of f the bus , the gov er

nm en t w as not

r equir ed to show“ ex ce pti ona lly

c le ar e vid en ce of

c onse nt. ” S ee id. a t 15 07. T he r ec or d su

ppor ts the r uli ng o f the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the arr es t of T ino co Fa j ar do w as sup porte d by

pr oba ble c au se . T ino co -F aj ar do w as not se iz ed unt il af te r he a dm itt ed

to be ing in the U nit ed

S ta te s il le ga lly
. B as ed

on tha t a dm iss ion , th e ag en ts ha d p ro babl e cau se at t ha t p oi ntto arre stTin oc o- Fajard o. E ve n if T ino co -F aj ar do h ad

be ense iz ed

dur ing the e nc ount er

on the bus
w ithA ge nt B ur

ne tte , r ea sona

ble sus pic ionj ust if

ie d th at se iz ur e. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Br ign oni -P onc e, 422 U
. S. 873 , 884 , 95 S
. Ct
. 257 4, 258 2 ( 1975 ). A ge nt B ur ne tte te sti fi ed that T ino co -F aj ar do w as ne rv ous dur ing the ini tia l e nc ount er out sid e the bus, spo ke in br oke n E ngl ish , and d id n ot r et ur n f ro m the bus w ith in a

r ea sona ble tim e af te r havin g be ena ske d f

or his ide nti fi catio n. T he tot al ity of tho se ci rc um stanc es sho w ed

that A ge nt B ur

ne tte ha d r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto de ta in T ino co -F aj ar do. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. A rv iz u, 534 U
. S. 266 , 273 , 122 S
. Ct
. 744 ,5

750 (2 002)
. B ec au se the f ac tua l f ind ing s of

the dis tr ic t c ourt w er e not c le ar ly erroneous, United States v. Ram irez- Chilel, 289 F. 3d 74 4, 749 (11th Cir. 2002), the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr w he n it de nie d th e m oti on t o su

ppr es s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso did not e rr w he n it de nie d T ino co -F aj ar do’ s m oti on fo r a se nte nc e re duc tio n ba se d ona cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity . T he S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de that a de fe ndant i s e lig ibl e fo r a tw o- le ve l de cr ea se in his of fe nse le ve l i f he “ cl earl y

de m onstrate s a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

f or his offense. ” U .S .S .G . § 3E 1.1(a)
. A district court is perm itted to denya sentence reduction un der section 3E1. 1(a) “based on cond uct inconsi stent with acce ptance of responsibi lity , e ven when that conduct inclu de[d] the assertion of a
co nst itu tio na l r igh t. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. S m ith , 127 F
. 3d 9 87, 989 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) (en ba nc ). W e giv e gr eat de fe re nc e to the f ind ing s of

the dis tr ic t c ourt r eg ar din g T ino co -F aj ar do’ s a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

and are bound t o a cc ep t those finding s unless th ey

are clear ly

err oneous . U. S. S. G. § 3E1.1 c m t. n. 5; United St at es v. G onz al ez , 70 F
. 3d 1 236, 123 9 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5) ( pe r curi am). T ino co Fa j ar do d id n ot e nte r a gui lty ple a, but ins te ad c onse nte d to abe nc h tr ia l w iththe unde rs tandi ng tha t he w oul d c ha lle nge the de nia l by the dis tr ic t c ourt of

his
m otion to supp ress phy sical evidence. By challenging th e adm issib ility of critica l6

ev ide nc e ag ai nst

him , T ino co -F aj ar do “ atte m pte d to a voi d ade te rm inatio n of fa ct ua l gu ilt and t o th er eb y

e sc ap e re spon sib ili ty

f or his c ri m e. ” G onz al ez , 70 F. 3d at 12 39. C onsi de ratio n a t se nte nc ing by the dis tr ic t c ourt of

T ino co Faj ardo’ s “ efforts to pu t the governm ent to the test byfighting the essential
ev ide nc e ag ai nst

him , and h is f

ai lur e to unc ondi tio na lly

ple ad gui lty , d[ id] not im perm issib ly

punis h [T inoco-Faj ardo] for exer cising hi s constit ution al rights.” Id . at 1 24 0. AFFIRMED.