Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-10
Citations: 468 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 11-50134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2012.
Filed Feb. 10, 2012.
Anne Kristina Perry, Bruce R. Castet-ter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law Off. of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandro Martinez-Castro stands convicted of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 1326(b). He appeals the district court's refusal to suppress evidence garnered from what he argues was an illegal stop. "[Wjhen [a Customs and Border Patrol] officer's observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, he may stop the car briefly and investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). Given the totality of circumstances, such reasonable suspicion existed here. See United States v. Garcia-Barron, 116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.1997).
Even if there were no reasonable suspicion, Martinez-Castro would not be entitled to suppress the identity evidence to which he objects. See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567, 577 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.