T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der m aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 7082 v. ( E . D . O kl ahoma) L E T IC IA A . R O D R IG U E Z , a/k /a R ebec ca G ar ci a- B el t r an,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( 0 5 - C R - 0 0 0 0 5 - W)

OR DER & J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge pane l h a s d e ter m in e d u n a n im o u slyto g ra n t th e A p p e llan t’s u n o p p o se d m o tio n to su b m it th is a p p e a l o n th e b ri e fs . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10 TH C IR . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. D efe ndant - appel l antL et i ci a A . R odr i guez w as i ndi ct ed on one c ountof pos s es s i ng coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1)2

and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . A ft ert he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed herm ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence t hatw as found i n hervehi cl e dur i ng a tr aff i c s t op, M s . R odr i guez e nt er ed a pl ea of gui l t yt o t he i ndi ctm ent , w i t h t he condi t i on thats he coul d appea l the s uppr es s i on rul i ng. T hi s rul i ng i s the onl yi s s ue on appe al . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e affi r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of h e r m o tio n to s u p p re s s . I . BA CKGROUND O n D ece m ber1, 2004, O kl ahoma H i ghw ayPatr ol T r ooperC odyH y de s t opped M s . R odr i guez forhavi ng a defect i ve t ag l amp. A thi s r eques t , s he j oi ned hi m i n hi s patr ol carw hi l e he c hecke d herr egi s tr at i on and w r ot e hera w arni ng ci t at i on. D ur i ng t hi s t i m e, T r ooperH y de as ked M s . R odr i guez a num berof q u e stio n s re late d to h e r tra v e l p lan s. M s. R o d rig u e z c lea rlyw a s n o t flu e n t in E n g lish , an d T ro o p e r H y d e so m e tim e s in ter sp e rse d a S p a n ish w o rd in h is ques t i ons t o fac i l i t at e di al ogue. N onethel es s , s he knew and under s t ood enough E ngl i s h t o compl yw i t h T r ooperH y de’ s r eques t s and expl ai n t o hi m t hats he w as on herw ayt o A t l ant a t o pur chas e a truck. A ft erw r i t i ng M s . R odr i guez the w arni ng ci t at i on, he r etur ned herl i cens e and r egi s tr at i on, t ol d hers he di d not h a v e to p a ya n ym o n e y , a n d to b e c a re f u l o n h e r t ri p . I m m edi at el yaft ert hi s , T r ooperH y de as ked M s . R odr i guez w hetherhe cou l d ask h er a coup l e m ore que st i on s. T he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd t hat M s. R odr i guez r es ponded “I don’ t. . . . D o I need t o t ake the pape rt o getm yt ai l l i ght3

orm yl i cens e t ag l i ghtfi xed?” R ec. vol . I I , at9 ( T r . of Suppr es s i on H r ’ g, dat ed F eb. 16 , 20 05 ). T rooper H y de an sw ered this qu est i on , and then proceed ed to ask herw hethers he had a nyguns i n hercar , and w hethers he had a nydrugs l i ke m ar ij uana orcoca i ne i n t he ca r . M s . R odr i guez, w i thouthes i t at i on, ans w er ed

“ n o ” to e a c h o f

th e se q u e stio n s. W h e n T ro o p e r H y d e a sk e d w h e th e r h e c o u ld s ear ch the ca r , s he r epl i ed “y es . ” D ur i ng the s ear ch, T r ooperH y de l ocat ed coca i ne i n M s . R odr i guez’ s vehi cl e. T he G overnm enti ndi ct ed M s . R odr i guez forone countof pos s es s i on of coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. She fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence found dur i ng t he s ear ch of he rvehi cl e, ar gui ng ( 1) thatT r ooperH y de l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s ear ch, and thats he di d notcons entt o the ext ens i on of t he tr aff i c s t op, and ( 2) t hatM s . R odr i guez di d notgi ve know i ng and i nt el l i gent c o n se n t to se a rc h h e r v e h icle b e c a u se sh e w a s u n a b le to c o m m u n ica te m eani ngful l yw i t h T r ooperH y de. A ta hea r i ng, w her e the part i es s t i pul at ed t o t he ad m issi o n o f a v ideo tape o f th e sto p , the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M s. R o d ri g u ez ’s m o ti o n to su p p ress. T h e d istri ct co u rtfo u n d that “[ d ]uring that ex ch an g e [ w h ere t he T rooper asked a dd i t i on al qu est i on s] , there w as no h esi t at i on on [M s. R odr i guez’ s ] part , atal l , w hi ch l eads m e t o bel i eve thats he ful l yunder s t ood the ques t i ons t hatw er e bei ng as ked and i nt el l i gent l ym ade a deci s i on [t o] cons entt o a s ear ch and t o cons entt o an ext ended s t op. ” Id. M s . R odr i guez pl eade d gui l tyt o the one- counti ndi ctm ent , w i th the4

condi t i on t hats he coul d appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on on the s uppr es s i on m o ti o n . T h e d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed h er to 7 1 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, p lus a term of 60 m ont hs ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed, w i th M s . R odr i guez r a i s i n g t h e s a me t wo a r g u me n t s th a ts h e d i d b e l o w. I I . DI S CU S S I ON In re v iew ing a d en ial o f a m o ti o n to su p p ress, w e a cc ep t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . United S tates v. B radford , 423 F. 3d 1149, 1156 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . T hos e fi ndi ngs i ncl ude det erm i nat i ons of c re d ib ili ty , the w e ig h t to b e g iv e n to th e e v id e n c e , as w e ll as re a so n a b le in fe re n c e s a n d c o n c lu s io n s th a t m a yb e d ra w n f ro m th e e v id e n c e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hu n n icu tt , 135 F. 3d 1345, 1348 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . T he ques t i on of w hetheran i ndi vi dual cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of the vehi cl e i s a ques t i on of fa ctt hatw e r evi ew fo r c le a r e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. R os bor ough , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 4 9 (10 th C ir . 2004) . W e vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , but th e “ u lti m a te d e ter m in a tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t . . . is a ques t i on of l aw w hi ch w e r evi ew de novo. ” B radford , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 6 . T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts “ [ t]h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in t hei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s e iz u re s .” U .S . C ONST . am e n d . IV . A tra ffic s to p c o n stitu tes a “ se izu re ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, “e v e n th o u g h th e p u rp o se o f th e sto p is l i m i t ed and the r es ul t i ng det ent i on qui t e br i ef. ” D el aw are v. P rouse , 44 0 U. S.5

648, 653 ( 1979) . B eca us e a r out i ne tr aff i c s t op i s m or e ana l ogous t o an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on t han a f ul l cus t odi al arr es t , w e ana l y ze a tr aff i c s t op under t he pr i nci pl es of Te rr

y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 (1 9 6 8 ). U n d er Terry , t o det erm i ne w hetheran i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on ortr aff i c s t op w a s re a so n a b le, w e a sk tw o q u e stio n s: first, w h e th e r th e sto p w a s ju stified a t it s i ncept i on, and s econd, w hethert he s cope of the det ent i on w as r eas onabl yr el at ed to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t ju s tifie d th e s to p . United S tates v. C aro , 248 F. 3d 1240, 1244 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . M s . R odr i guez doe s notchal l enge the val i di tyof Troope r H y de’ s i ni t i al s t op of hervehi cl e. T her efor e, w e pr ocee d t o hercont ent i on that T r ooperH y de i m perm i s s i bl yexce eded the s cope of thatdet ent i on byas ki ng her q u e s tio n s u n re la te d to th e tr a ffic s to p a f te r h e h a d is s u e d h e r a w a rn in g c ita tio n . A . E xt ens i on of Tra ffi c St op “[D ] ur i ng [a j us t i fi ed] s t op, an off i cerm ayas k r out i ne ques t i ons aboutthe dr i ver ’ s t r avel pl ans . ” B radford , 423 F. 3d at1156. “A ft erthe off i cerhas i s s ued t he ci t at i on, how ever , t he dr i verm us tbe al l ow ed t o pr ocee d on hi s w ay , w i thout bei ng s ubj ectt o fur t herdel aybythe pol i ce i f he ha s pr oduced a val i d l i cens e and pr oof thathe i s ent i t l ed t o oper at e the ca r . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Zubi a- Mel endez , 263 F. 3d 1155, 1161 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “[F] ur ther d e ten tio n fo r p u rp o se s o f q u e stio n in g u n re late d to th e in iti a l sto p is im p e rm iss ib le unl es s ( 1) t he off

i cerhas an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e and a r t i cul abl e s us pi ci on that i l l egal act i vi t yhas occurr ed ori s occurr i ng, or( 2) the i ni t i al det ent i on has6

become a cons ens ual encount er . ” B radford , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 6 -5 7 . “A t r aff i c s t op m aybecome a cons ens ual encount er , r equi r i ng no r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, i f the off i cerr etur ns the l i cens e and r egi s tr at i on and as ks ques t i ons w i t houtfur t hercons t r ai ni ng the dr i verbyan overbear i ng s how of author i t y . ” United S tates v. West , 2 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). “W hetheran enc ount ercan be deemed cons ens ual depends on w hetherthe pol i ce conductw oul d have c onvey ed t o a r eas onabl e per s on thathe ors he w as notfr ee t o decl i ne the off

i cer ’ s r eques t s orotherw i s e t erm i nat e the enc ount er . ” Id. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “The governm entbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng vol unt arycons entbas ed on the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G regoir e , 4 2 5 F .3 d 8 7 2 , 8 7 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H ere, t he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd that al tho ug h T rooper H y de an d M s. R o d rig u e z h a d so m e p ro b lem s c o m m u n ica tin g , sh e d id n o t h e sita te to a n sw e r h is ques t i ons . T hi s l ack of hes i t at i on, coupl ed w i th the court ’ s exami nat i on of the e n tire v id e o tap e o f

th e e n c o u n ter , led th e c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t “s h e f u lly under s t ood t he ques t i ons t hatw er e bei ng as ked and i nt el l i gent l ym ade a deci s i on to . . . c o n s e n t to a n e x te n d e d s to p .” R e c . v o l. I I, a t 9 . A fter rev iew ing the v ideo tape , w e c an n o t saythat the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs w er e cl ear l yerr oneous . M s . R odr i guez a nd T r ooperH y de cl ear l yhad so m e tro u b le c o m m u n ica tin g , b u t th e ya lso w e re a b le to c o m m u n ica te e ffe c tiv e ly in so m e in sta n c e s. A lth o u g h M s. R o d rig u e z d id n o t ex p licitlyc o n se n t to7

re m a in in g w ith T ro o p e r H y d e to a n sw e r a d d iti o n a l q u e stio n s, sh e a p p e a re d to under s t and and e as i l yans w erhi s ques t i ons . M or eover , M s . R odr i guez a dm i t s t hat T r ooperH y de had r etur ned herl i cens e and r egi s tr at i on befor e he be gan t o as k her addi t i onal ques t i ons . Fi nal l y , as the di s tr i ctcour ts t at ed, “[o] n the keyques t i ons r egar di ng pos s es s i on of guns ordrugs s he ans w er ed unequi vocal l yand w i thout hes i t at i on i n t he nega t i ve. W hen as k[ed] i f s he w oul d cons entt o a s ear ch of he r aut om obi l e, s he r es ponded unhes i t at i ngl yi n the affi r m at i ve. ” R ec. vol . I , doc. 13, a t 1 -2 (D is t. C t. O rd e r, file d F e b . 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 ). Si gni fi cant l y , t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notfi nd, and M s . R odr i guez doe s not ar gue, t hatT r ooperH y de made anyoverbear i ng s how of author i tyw hen he cont i nued t o as k herques t i ons . R ather , s he r el i es on a N i nth C i r cui tcas e and cont ends t hatunl es s a per s on i s expl i ci t l yt ol d thats he i s fr ee t o l eave then a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld n o t h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t s h e is f re e to e x it th e p a tr o l c a r. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . C h a v ez-Va len zu e la , 268 F. 3d 719, 725 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ Up o n r e tu r n i n g [ t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s ] d o c u me n t s , [ th e o ffi c e r ] th e n a s k e d h i m a q u e s tio n im p lyin g th a t h e s u s p e c te d [ th e d e fe n d a n t] o f c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. C onfr ont ed w i t h t hi s s i tuat i on, a r eas onabl e mot or i s t–even w i th l i cens e and r egi s t r at i on i n hand– mostl i kel yw oul d nothave be l i eved he coul d di s r egar d the offi cer ’ s i nqui r yand end the conve r s at i on. ”) . M s . R odr i guez a l s o ar gues thats he w as i m pr oper l ydet ai ned bec aus e s he di d notexpl i ci t l ycons entt o cont i nui ng the en co u n ter.8

W e di s agr ee. I n t hi s ci r cui t , w hen cons i der i ng w hetheran i ndi vi dual vol unt ar i l ycons ent s t o an enc ount er , w e l ook t o the “t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , ” and do notr equi r e “thatl aw enfor cementadvi s e . . . thata ci t i zen m ayt erm i nat e the enc ount er , t hough thi s . . . m aybe cons i der ed i n a t ot al i tyof t he ci r cumst ance s appr oach t o vol unt ar i nes s . ” G regoir e , 4 2 5 F . 3 d a t8 7 9 . “ An o ffice r is n o t re q u ire d to in fo rm a su sp e c t th a t sh e d o e s n o t h a v e to re sp o n d to h is ques t i oni ng ort hats he i s fr ee t o l eave . ” B radford , 42 3 F . 3d at11 58 . M s. R odr i guez’ s s i tuat i on i s verys i m i l art o the defendant ’ s i n B radford , wh e r e we e x p l a i n e d t h a ta r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s p o s i t i o n wo u l d h a v e k n o wn t hats he w as fr ee t o l eave . A lth o u g h w e a re tro u b led b yth e fa c t th a t [ th e d e fe n d a n t] w a s sittin g in t he patr ol carw hi l e [the off i cer ] ques ti oned heraft erhandi ng back he r document s , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on her e that[the officer ] m ade a ny coer ci ve s how of author i t y. . . s ugges t i ng thatt he deten ti o n had not ended. . . . T hus , aft er[the off i cer] hande d back the document s , the tr affic stop w as o v er, an d they w ere en g ag ed in a co n sen su al en co u n ter. Id. a t 1 1 5 9 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng thatM s . R odr i guez vol unt ar i l ycons ent ed t o t he ext ended e ncount erw i th T r ooperH y de w as not cl ear l yerr oneous . B eca us e M s . R odr i guez c ons ent ed t o the ext ens i on of the t r aff i c s t op, no Four t h A m endmentvi ol at i on occurr ed. W e nextcons i derw hether M s . R o d ri g u e z v o lu n ta ri ly co n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h o f h e r v e h ic le . B . C o n se n t to S e a rc h V e h icle9

C ons entt o fur t herdet ent i on does notaut om at i cal l ygi ve an offi cer perm i s s i on t o s ear ch a s us pect ’ s vehi cl e. W e have hel d thata vehi cl e maybe s ear ched w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e “i f a pe r s on i n contr ol of the vehi cl e has gi ven hi s vol unt arycons entt o t he s ear ch. ” Zubi a- Mel endez , 2 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 2 . “W hethervol unt arycons entw as gi ven i s a ques t i on of fa ct , det erm i ned bythe t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s and r evi ew ed forcl earerr or . ” Id. M s . R odr i guez c hal l enges T r ooperH y de’ s s ear ch of he rcar , ar gui ng that hercons entw as i nval i d beca us e i tw as the frui tof an unl aw ful det ent i on. B ut beca us e w e hel d above thatherdet ent i on foraddi t i onal ques t i oni ng w as not u n law fu l, this argu m en t fail s. W e the refo re p roc ee d to M s. R o d ri g u ez ’s addi t i onal ar gum ent , t hats he coul d nothave gi ven vol unt aryand i nt el l i gent cons entt o t he s ear ch of he rvehi cl e bec aus e of the l anguage barr i erbetw een he r a n d T ro o p e r H y d e . “W e have devel oped a tw o- s t ep t es tfordet erm i ni ng the vol unt ar i nes s of a cons entt o s ear ch: t he governm entm us t( 1) pr offe rcl earand pos i t i ve t es t i m ony t hatcons entw as unequi vocal and s peci fi c and f r eel yand i nt el l i gent l ygi ven, and ( 2) pr ove thatt hi s cons entw as gi ven w i thouti m pl i ed orexpr es s dur es s or coer ci on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez , 89 F. 3d 715, 719 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). O urappl i cat i on of thi s t es ti n Zubi a- Mel endezis p a rt ic u la rl yin s tru c tiv e . T her e, t he defendant , l i ke M s . R odr i guez, s poke onl yl i m i t ed Engl i s h and had10

s om e di ffi cul t ycomm uni cat i ng w i th the tr ooper . T he defendanti ni t i al l yr efus ed t o al l ow t he tr oopert o s ear ch hi s vehi cl e, butaft erbei ng as ked a s econd t i m e for cons entt o s ear ch r epl i ed “Y eah, no m at t er . ” 263 F. 3d at1163. A tthe s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , t h e d e fe n d a n tt e s t i fi e d a n d a d mi t t e d th a th e u n d e r s t o o d s o me of the off

i cer ’ s ques t i ons r egar di ng hi s name, i dent i fi cat i on, and ow ner s hi p of the v e h icle . N o n e th e les s, th e d e fe n d a n t co n ten d e d th a t h e h a d in su fficie n t fa m ili a rity w ith th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e to h a v e g iv e n k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry c o n s e n t. I n r evi ew i ng t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng of cons ent , w e s t at ed that“[the defe ndant ’ s ] cons entappea r s t o have c om e w i thouthes i t at i on w hen he w as as ked a s econd t i m e forperm i s s i on t o s ear ch the vehi cl e. ” Id. M or eover , “the di s tr i ct cou rtspeci fi cal l yfou nd . . . t hat [the d efen dan tand trooper] coul d co nv ers e s uffi ci ent l yt o under s t and one a nother . ” Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). A ddi t i onal l y , w e expl ai ned thatthe fa ctthatthe tr ooperhad “ne i thert ol d [the d e fe n d a n t] h e w a s f

re e to le a v e n o r i n fo rm e d h im th a t h e c o u ld re f u s e c o n s e n t . . . s houl d be cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hethercons entw as vol unt ary . ” Id. O ur r evi ew of the vi deot ape e vi dence , how ever , r evea l ed no phy s i cal orverbal coerci on on t he p artof the t rooper. In l i gh tof the t otal i tyof the ci rcum st ances, w e ac know l edged thatt he ques t i on “i s a cl os e one, ” buthel d thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt’s fin d in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d g iv e n v o lu n tar yc o n se n t w a s n o t cle a rly e rr o n e o u s . Id. M s . R odr i guez’ s and Troope rH y de’ s i nt er act i on w as s i m i l art o the11

s i tuat i on i n Zubi a- Mel endez . H ere, the d i stri ctcou rtackn ow l edg ed thatM s. R o d rig u e z h a d so m e tro u b le c o m m u n ica tin g w ith T ro o p e r H y d e , b u t ex p licitly found that , w hen s he w as as ked forhercons entt o s ear ch, “ther e w as no hes i t at i on on t he defendant ’ s part , atal l , ” and that“s he [w as ] under s t andi ng the maj or i tyof w hatw as bei ng s ai d t o her . ” R ec. vol . I I , at9. A l though T r ooperH y de di d not in fo rm M s. R o d rig u e z sh e w a s f re e to lea v e a n d f

re e to re f

u se c o n se n t, l ik e in Zubi a- Mel endez , ourr evi ew of the vi deot ape e vi dence does notr evea l , nordoes M s . R odr i guez a l l ege, t hatT r ooperH y de exe r t ed anyki nd of phy s i cal orverbal coer ci on. T hus , bas ed on the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnotconcl ude t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtcl ear l yerr ed i n fi ndi ng thatM s . R odr i guez ga ve know i ng a n d v o lu n tar yc o n se n t to se a rc h h e r v e h icle . B e c a u se M s. R o d rig u e z c o n se n ted to th e se a rc h , the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st s e a rc h in g a v e h icle w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e i s notappl i cabl e. I I I . CO NC L US I ON F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e A F F IR M t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of M s. R o d ri g u e z ’s m o tio n to s u p p re s s .
E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge