# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5.4.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: 07/26/2023No. 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
office r 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 cou rt’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 app ropriately 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 re ad, 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

. Moreo ver, during the traffic stop, Castaneda gave Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023No. 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 sm all 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 eviden ce 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 crimi nal 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 h andler did prompt the dog in that manner, however, because the canine handler testified that, be fore 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. Th e district court fo und that the canine handler’s testimony was credible, and this credibility determination is entitled to Case: 22-10844 Document: 00516835271 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2023No. 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
obta ined 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.

F inally, 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