Court Opinion

ID: 9411560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 00:01:54.320614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.176402
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10844     Document: 00516835271         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/26/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-10844
                                Summary Calendar                            FILED
                                ____________                            July 26, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                Clerk

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Benancio Castaneda,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:21-CR-31-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Following a stipulated bench trial, Benancio Castaneda was convicted
   of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or
   more of methamphetamine (actual), and of possession with the intent to
   distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual). The district court

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10844      Document: 00516835271          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                    No. 22-10844

   sentenced Castaneda to a total of 180 months in prison and a total of five years
   of supervised release.
          Castaneda appeals the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress
   the evidence found in the vehicle he was driving, arguing that the police
   officer did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to wait for
   a canine unit. We review the district court’s factual findings with respect to
   a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
   States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013). In a case where, as here,
   the district court’s denial of the motion “is based on live oral testimony, the
   clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong because the judge had the
   opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v.
   Bass, 996 F.3d 729, 736-37 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Moreover, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
   to the prevailing party, here the Government, see id. at 737, and the district
   court’s ruling on the suppression motion “should be upheld if there is any
   reasonable view of the evidence to support it,” United States v. Massi,
   761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).
          Where the police officer “develops reasonable suspicion of additional
   criminal activity during his investigation of the circumstances that originally
   caused the [traffic] stop, he may further detain [the vehicle’s] occupants for
   a reasonable time while appropriately attempting to dispel this reasonable
   suspicion.” United States v. Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Deputy Dwight
   Montgomery initiated the traffic stop because the vehicle’s license plate
   could not be read, as it was a temporary paper tag that was not secured
   properly and was “flapping.” Deputy Montgomery knew that narcotics
   agents had been surveilling Castaneda after seeing him leave a house they had
   been monitoring.     Moreover, during the traffic stop, Castaneda gave

                                              2
Case: 22-10844      Document: 00516835271           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                     No. 22-10844

   inconsistent and untruthful stories about where he had been coming from. In
   addition, Castaneda’s driver’s license was invalid, and his driver’s license
   had been suspended due to his failure to complete a drug-education program.
   Castaneda also was “pretty visibly nervous, jittery,” avoided eye contact,
   and “couldn’t sit still.”
          Agent Marvin Patterson testified that, just prior to the traffic stop, he
   and another narcotics agent were conducting surveillance on a house where
   neighbors had complained about short-stay traffic consistent with drug
   trafficking. Agent Patterson testified that he observed Castaneda enter that
   house carrying a lunchbox and leave with that lunchbox after less than 10
   minutes, and that small containers like the lunchbox can be used to carry
   narcotics.    Agent Patterson’s knowledge can be imputed to Deputy
   Montgomery because they were in communication with each other, and
   Agent Patterson participated in the traffic stop in coordination with Deputy
   Montgomery. See Powell, 732 F.3d at 369. Viewing the evidence in the
   aggregate and in the light most favorable to the Government, the district
   court did not err in concluding that the officers had developed reasonable
   suspicion of additional criminal activity that justified extending the stop to
   wait for the canine unit. See United States v. Reyes, 963 F.3d 482, 487-90 (5th
   Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2010),
   modified on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Castaneda also challenges the canine sniff itself, asserting that the
   canine handler prompted the dog to stick her nose through the vehicle’s
   window, resulting in an unlawful search. We need not decide whether the
   canine handler did prompt the dog in that manner, however, because the
   canine handler testified that, before the dog put her nose in the window, the
   dog had already alerted by the front driver’s-side wheel when she climbed
   under the vehicle. The district court found that the canine handler’s
   testimony was credible, and this credibility determination is entitled to

                                              3
Case: 22-10844      Document: 00516835271          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                    No. 22-10844

   deference. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005).
   Accordingly, based on that alert by the wheel, the officers had already
   obtained probable cause to search the vehicle. See United States v. Williams,
   69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court therefore did not err in
   denying Castaneda’s motion to suppress.
          Finally, Castaneda argues that the district court should have reduced
   his offense level because he accepted responsibility for his offense under
   U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. In denying the reduction, the district court noted that
   Castaneda filed and signed a bench trial stipulation in September 2021, but
   then on the morning that the bench trial was scheduled to occur, Castaneda
   said that he wished to exercise his right to a jury trial and he denied having
   signed that stipulation. Consequently, the district court scheduled a jury trial
   for that November, but in the week before the jury trial, Castaneda
   announced that he no longer wanted a jury trial and that he would sign
   another stipulation; he then signed the stipulation (along with the motion for
   a bench trial) in the district court’s presence so he could not claim again that
   he did not sign it. Based on this record, the district court’s denial of a
   reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was not “without foundation.”
   United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1020 (5th Cir. 2019); see also United
   States v. Omigie, 977 F.3d 397, 406 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              4