Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 102 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 03-50054
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-50054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2004.
Decided June 22, 2004.
Jason M. Ohta, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Gerald B. Singleton, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandro Hernandez appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of a Customs Inspector's search of the gas tank of Hernandez's vehicle following which Hernandez entered a conditional guilty plea to importation of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 952, 960) and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2).
Hernandez contends that the district court erred in finding that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the "non-routine" search of the gas tank. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held that the government's authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel tank. United States v. Flores-Montano, - U.S. -, -, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 1587, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004). The search of Hernandez's gas tank was therefore lawful and the district court properly denied the suppression motion. United States v. Nava, 363 F.3d 942, 944-15 (9th Cir.2004) (applying Flores-Montano).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.