Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pastor Santiago RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-13
Citations: 200 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 05-51105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pastor Santiago RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pastor Santiago RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-51105
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
H. Thomas Hirsch, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After a bench trial, the district court convicted Pastor Santiago Rodriguez of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Rodriguez appeals, contending that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress the cocaine. He argues that the search that discovered the cocaine under the intake manifold of his engine exceeded the scope of his consent to search his vehicle.
Because Rodriguez did not place any limitations on his consent to the search, he had no reasonable cause for believing the search would be somehow limited. See United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663, 667 (5th Cir.2003). Moreover, Rodriguez consented to the dog's sniff of the vehicle, which provided probable cause to search the engine area where the dog indicated there was contraband. See United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir.1995).
The search did not exceed the scope of Rodriguez's consent and was further supported by probable cause. The judgment of the district court is
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.