Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin CAZARES-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-19
Citations: 75 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 01-50691
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin CAZARES-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin CAZARES-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50691
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2003.
Mara A Blatt, Joseph H Gay, Jr, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eva-Marie Elisabeth Leahey, Leahey Law Offices, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Martin Cazares-Mejia ("Cazares") pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more, but less than 100 kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. He appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his post-detention statements and the marijuana found in the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Fidencio Sanchez-Pena, the driver of the vehicle and a codefendant, filed a similar motion to suppress. This court has already upheld the district court's denial of Sanchez's motion to suppress the marijuana, rejecting the same arguments raised herein by Cazares. See United States v. Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d 431 (5th Cir.2003) (copy at green tab). Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, Cazares' arguments challenging the extended detention must be rejected. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir.1998). Cazares' argument that his post-detention statements must be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree" is yet another challenge to the extended detention and is therefore unavailing. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.