Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel ARIZPE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-27
Citations: 463 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 11-40146
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel ARIZPE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 296–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Gabriel ARIZPE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40146
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2012.
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose Salvador Tellez, II, Esq., Law Office of Jose Salvador Tellez II, P.C., Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Gabriel Arizpe appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress without holding an evi-dentiary hearing. He argues that the contentions he raised in his motion implicitly challenged the state trooper's reason for stopping his vehicle and that his implicit, conclusional statement was sufficiently specific and detailed to warrant an eviden-tiary hearing.
The motion to suppress contained no detailed factual allegations suggesting that the reason for the vehicle stop was invalid or that the length of the stop was unjustified. The district court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of the motion was not error. See United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir.2005); Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530-31 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir.1983).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.