Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Gerardo BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-08
Citations: 227 F. App'x 370
Docket Number: No. 06-50780
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Gerardo BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 370–370

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Gerardo BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50780
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 8, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Susan Kelly Johnston, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial on stipulated evidence, Armando Gerardo Benavides was convicted of possession with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. Benavides appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that his detention was impermissibly extended and that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his tractor-trailer.
Our review of the record shows that the district court did not err in determining that the initial stop of Benavides's vehicle was permissibly extended based on reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506-07 (5th Cir.2004). The district court also did not err in determining that Benavides voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 435-37 (5th Cir.2002). Benavides has not shown that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.