* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/24/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DIONICIO CARMONA-LEON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Case No. 95-2142

(D.C. CR 95-71 HB)

(District of New Mexico)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

On February 8, 1995, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of New Mexico

returned an indictment against defendant-appellant Dionicio Carmona-Leon charging him

with two counts of transporting illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After entering a plea of not guilty Mr.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that

oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Carmona filed two motions: (1) a motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued

that the administrative seizure and forfeiture of his vehicle constituted punishment for the

crime charged in the indictment and therefore was barred by the Fifth Amendment’s

Double Jeopardy Clause; and (2) a motion to suppress evidence, in which he alleged that

the roving border patrol stop of his vehicle was unlawful.

The district court denied both of Mr. Carmona’s motions. Subsequently, Mr.

Carmona pleaded guilty to the first count of the indictment, conditioned on his right to

appeal the district court’s denial of his motions. The district court sentenced Mr.

Carmona to serve a term of probation of two years. Mr. Carmona filed a timely notice of

appeal seeking review of the district court’s rulings on his motions. We affirm the district

court.1

I. BACKGROUND

At 11:50 p.m on January 16, 1995, two United States Border Patrol agents stopped

Mr. Carmona while he was driving his 1992 Ford Mustang on New Mexico Highway 185

some sixty-five miles from the Mexican border. The agents pulled Mr. Carmona over

after observing: (1) that his Mustang had heavily tinted windows, which prevented the

agents from seeing into the vehicle’s passenger compartment, (2) that the car was riding
3

low to the ground indicating that it could be transporting substantial cargo or several

people, (3) that the vehicle’s license plate was displayed upside down, which the agents

suspected to be an effort to hinder law enforcement officers from running a registration

check on the vehicle, and (4) that the vehicle was not one of the few vehicles known to

the agents from experience that regularly traveled that stretch of Highway 185 at that time

of night. 

After stopping the Mustang, the agents discovered that the three passengers were

illegal aliens. Mr. Carmona was placed under arrest for transporting illegal aliens. The

Mustang was seized by the United States Border Patrol.

The advertisement of seizure of Mr. Carmona’s Mustang was first published on

January 25, 1995. Aple’s Br. Ex. 2. Mr. Carmona did not seek judicial determination of

the forfeiture under 8 C.F.R. § 274.12. Rather, on February 2, 1995, Mr. Carmona sent a

letter to the Border Patrol which asked for “mitigation of forfeiture [under 8 C.F.R. §

274.16] . . . realiz[ing] that a penalty is imposed.” Aple’s Br. Ex. 4. The Border Patrol

responded to Mr. Carmona’s letter on February 9, 1995, informing him that his letter was

insufficient to request relief from forfeiture because it lacked evidence of Mr. Carmona’s

property interest in the Mustang. The Border Patrol specifically requested a notarized

copy of the vehicle’s title. Aple’s Br. Ex. 5. On February 14, Mr. Carmona forwarded a

notarized copy of the Mustang’s title which listed Mr. Carmona as the Mustang’s

registered owner and Ford Motor Credit Company as the Mustang’s first lienholder. 
4

Aple’s Br. Ex. 6. This copy of the title was received by the Border Patrol on February 22,

1995. Mr. Carmona’s Mustang was declared seized on February 15, 1995 after the

Border Patrol had not received a claim and cost bond requesting judicial determination of

forfeiture within the prescribed twenty day period following January 25, 1995. See 8

C.F.R. § 274.12. On March 15, 1995, the Border Patrol received a statement entitled

“Agreement to Forfeit Interest in Property” dated March 13, in which Mr. Carmona

“agree[d] as claimant-owner, to forfeit his interest in [the Mustang].” Aple’s Br. Ex. 7. 

That same day, the Border Patrol sent Ford Motor Credit Company a notice granting

remission and sent Mr. Carmona a letter denying his petition for relief and notifying him

of the procedure for requesting reconsideration.

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Carmona appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and the

denial of his motion to suppress the evidence from the border patrol stop. We have

jurisdiction to hear Mr. Carmona’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A district

court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is

reviewed de novo. United States v. German, 76 F.3d 315, 317 (10th Cir. 1996). In

reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must accept the district court’s factual

findings unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Guillen-Cazares, 989 F.2d

380, 382 (10th Cir. 1993). However, the ultimate determination of reasonableness under
5

the Fourth Amendment is a legal question that we review de novo. Id.; United States v.

Walker, 933 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1093 (1992).

A. Motion to Dismiss

Mr. Carmona argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss

because the administrative seizure of his car was punishment precluding a subsequent

criminal indictment based on the same conduct (the transportation of illegal aliens).

We addressed substantially the same issue in German. We held that “[the

defendant] was never placed in jeopardy or ‘punished’ in any constitutional sense because

he was never a party to any proceeding designed to adjudicate his personal culpability.” 

German, 76 F.3d at 320. The defendant in German merely filed a petition for remission

and did not ask for judicial determination of the forfeiture. Id. at 317. 

Mr. Carmona’s position is analogous to that of the defendant in German. In his

February 2, 1995 letter to the Border Patrol, Mr. Carmona stated: “I am asking for a

mitigation of forfeiture. I realize that a penalty is imposed.” Aple’s Br. Ex. 4. Because

Mr. Carmona did not ask for a judicial determination of the forfeiture of the Mustang, he

“never became a party to any proceeding designed to adjudicate his personal culpability.” 

German, 76 F.3d at 320. Thus, the administrative forfeiture of Mr. Carmona’s Mustang

did not amount to jeopardy nor did it subject him to punishment under the Fifth

Amendment.
6

B. Motion to Suppress

Mr. Carmona argues that when the Border Patrol stopped his vehicle, they did so

without reasonable suspicion, thereby violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment. 

As a result, he maintains that the evidence obtained during the stop should have been

suppressed.

Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop vehicles if, given the totality of the

circumstances, “they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational

inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain

aliens who may be illegally in the country.” Guillen-Cazares, 989 F.2d at 382 (10th Cir.

1993) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). Further, “an

‘officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry

and smuggling.’” United States v. Monsisvais, 907 F.2d 987, 990 (10th Cir. 1990)

(quoting Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 885).

The facts presented in this case handily meet this standard. The stop occurred near

midnight on a highway known to the Border Patrol agents as a common conduit for

trafficking in illegal aliens. The agents were familiar with the very few local vehicles that

used the highway at that time of night, and Mr. Carmona’s Mustang was not familiar to

them. Thus drawn to give the Mustang closer attention, the agents noticed that the car

was riding low, the windows were heavily tinted, and the license plate was on upside

down (all of which suggested that the vehicle might be carrying illicit cargo). In light of
7

these facts, and the rational inferences drawn from them, the agents’ suspicion that Mr.

Carmona’s vehicle contained illegal aliens was reasonable. Therefore, the stop of Mr.

Carmona’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
8

III. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

Entered for the Court,

ROBERT HENRY

Circuit Judge