United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10844

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Benancio Castaneda, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:21-CR-31-1 

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Following a stipulated bench trial, Benancio Castaneda was convicted 

of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or 

more of methamphetamine (actual), and of possession with the intent to 

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual). The district court 

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-10844

2

sentenced Castaneda to a total of 180 months in prison and a total of five years 

of supervised release.

Castaneda appeals the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress 

the evidence found in the vehicle he was driving, arguing that the police 

officer did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to wait for 

a canine unit. We review the district court’s factual findings with respect to 

a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United 

States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013). In a case where, as here,

the district court’s denial of the motion “is based on live oral testimony, the 

clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong because the judge had the 

opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v. 

Bass, 996 F.3d 729, 736-37 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Moreover, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party, here the Government, see id. at 737, and the district 

court’s ruling on the suppression motion “should be upheld if there is any 

reasonable view of the evidence to support it,” United States v. Massi, 

761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Where the police officer “develops reasonable suspicion of additional 

criminal activity during his investigation of the circumstances that originally 

caused the [traffic] stop, he may further detain [the vehicle’s] occupants for 

a reasonable time while appropriately attempting to dispel this reasonable 

suspicion.” United States v. Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2020)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Deputy Dwight 

Montgomery initiated the traffic stop because the vehicle’s license plate 

could not be read, as it was a temporary paper tag that was not secured 

properly and was “flapping.” Deputy Montgomery knew that narcotics 

agents had been surveilling Castaneda after seeing him leave a house they had 

been monitoring. Moreover, during the traffic stop, Castaneda gave 

Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-10844

3

inconsistent and untruthful stories about where he had been coming from. In 

addition, Castaneda’s driver’s license was invalid, and his driver’s license 

had been suspended due to his failure to complete a drug-education program. 

Castaneda also was “pretty visibly nervous, jittery,” avoided eye contact,

and “couldn’t sit still.”

Agent Marvin Patterson testified that, just prior to the traffic stop, he 

and another narcotics agent were conducting surveillance on a house where

neighbors had complained about short-stay traffic consistent with drug 

trafficking. Agent Patterson testified that he observed Castaneda enter that 

house carrying a lunchbox and leave with that lunchbox after less than 10 

minutes, and that small containers like the lunchbox can be used to carry 

narcotics. Agent Patterson’s knowledge can be imputed to Deputy 

Montgomery because they were in communication with each other, and 

Agent Patterson participated in the traffic stop in coordination with Deputy 

Montgomery. See Powell, 732 F.3d at 369. Viewing the evidence in the 

aggregate and in the light most favorable to the Government, the district 

court did not err in concluding that the officers had developed reasonable 

suspicion of additional criminal activity that justified extending the stop to 

wait for the canine unit. See United States v. Reyes, 963 F.3d 482, 487-90 (5th 

Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2010), 

modified on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010).

Castaneda also challenges the canine sniff itself, asserting that the 

canine handler prompted the dog to stick her nose through the vehicle’s 

window, resulting in an unlawful search. We need not decide whether the 

canine handler did prompt the dog in that manner, however, because the 

canine handler testified that, before the dog put her nose in the window, the 

dog had already alerted by the front driver’s-side wheel when she climbed 

under the vehicle. The district court found that the canine handler’s 

testimony was credible, and this credibility determination is entitled to 

Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-10844

4

deference. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, based on that alert by the wheel, the officers had already 

obtained probable cause to search the vehicle. See United States v. Williams, 

69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court therefore did not err in 

denying Castaneda’s motion to suppress.

Finally, Castaneda argues that the district court should have reduced 

his offense level because he accepted responsibility for his offense under 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. In denying the reduction, the district court noted that

Castaneda filed and signed a bench trial stipulation in September 2021, but 

then on the morning that the bench trial was scheduled to occur, Castaneda 

said that he wished to exercise his right to a jury trial and he denied having 

signed that stipulation. Consequently, the district court scheduled a jury trial

for that November, but in the week before the jury trial, Castaneda 

announced that he no longer wanted a jury trial and that he would sign 

another stipulation; he then signed the stipulation (along with the motion for 

a bench trial) in the district court’s presence so he could not claim again that 

he did not sign it. Based on this record, the district court’s denial of a 

reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was not “without foundation.” 

United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1020 (5th Cir. 2019); see also United 

States v. Omigie, 977 F.3d 397, 406 (5th Cir. 2020).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/26/2023