Opinion ID: 150460
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gerardo Romero Hidalgo

Text: Romero presents four issues on appeal which overlap, in substantial part, with those issues presented by Hidalgo: (1) whether the district court erred in placing on Romero the burden of proof in his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the Illinois traffic stop; (2) whether Romero was illegally detained during the Illinois traffic stop; (3) whether sufficient evidence supported his conviction on various charges; and (4) whether the district court erred at 4 Hidalgo also argues that application of the mandatory minimum sentence to his crime is unconstitutional, but that argument is meritless. See generally Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 230 (1998); accord United States v. Robinson, 344 F. App’x 936, 940–41 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“We hold that the application of the statutory mandatory minimum in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) does not violate [the defendant’s] Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process or to a judicial determination of the reasonableness of his sentence.”). 8 Case: 08-51161 Document: 00511169784 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/12/2010 Nos. 08-51161, 08-51162, 08-51191 sentencing. We address each in turn, referencing our discussion of Hidalgo’s issues on appeal. 1. Whether the district court erred in placing on Romero the burden of proof in his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the Illinois traffic stop. Romero was riding along with Hidalgo when the tractor–trailer was stopped in Illinois on October 12, 2006. Romero joined Hidalgo’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from this traffic stop, and the district court addressed both of their arguments in its ruling on this motion. Romero’s challenge to the district court’s ruling on appeal, arguing that the court improperly placed upon him the burden of proving that the Illinois traffic stop was unconstitutional, is foreclosed for the reasons outlined in subsection IIA1 above. 2. Whether Romero was illegally detained during the Illinois traffic stop. Like Hidalgo, Romero argues that he was illegally detained during the Illinois traffic stop. However, Romero raises no argument that suggests that the analysis of the stop with respect to Hidalgo does not equally apply to him. Thus, for the reasons outlined in subsection IIA2 above, we find no error in the district court’s suppression decision. 3. Whether sufficient evidence supported Romero’s convictions. Like Hidalgo, Romero contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, pointing to supposed inconsistencies and problems with the testimony presented. Romero’s attacks on the testimony presented at trial are unpersuasive. See Casillas, 20 F.3d at 602. Taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, this testimony indicated that Romero participated in a number of shipments of drugs and money. Further, this testimony was also supported by the fact that Romero was arrested, along with Hidalgo, riding in a truck containing a large amount of cocaine. Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and we find no error on this issue. 9 Case: 08-51161 Document: 00511169784 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/12/2010 Nos. 08-51161, 08-51162, 08-51191 4. Whether the district court erred at sentencing. Finally, like Hidalgo, Romero challenges the sentence imposed following conviction, arguing that the application of the mandatory minimum sentence violated his rights and that his sentence was unreasonable. Romero was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment, a sentence within the recommended Guidelines range. We find no error in Romero’s sentence. See Carey, 589 F.3d at 196.