United States v. Flores ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-50417
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS AARON FLORES; EDGAR ENRIQUE
FLORES; ROBERTO AGUILAR-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________
No. 99-50508
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUADELUPE FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. 99-CR-3-1
USDC No. 99-CR-3-2
USDC No. 99-CR-3-3
USDC No. 99-CR-3-4
_________________________________________________________________
March 23, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Jesus Aaron Flores (“Aaron”), Edgar Enrique Flores (“Edgar”),
Guadelupe Flores (“Guadelupe”), and Roberto Aguilar-Rodriguez
(“Aguilar”) appeal from their convictions of importation of
marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana,
conspiracy to import marijuana, and conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute marijuana. Aaron, Edgar, and Guadelupe
contend that law enforcement agents lacked reasonable suspicion to
stop their vehicles. Edgar contends that agents lacked reasonable
suspicion to detain him. Aaron and Aguilar contend that the
evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. Although
Aaron and Guadelupe attempt to adopt the claims raised by each
other and by the other appellants as provided by FED. R. APP. P.
28(i), this court does not allow an appellant to adopt fact-
specific challenges, such as sufficiency of the evidence, to
support a conviction or sentence. See United States v. Moser, 123
F.3d 813, 819 n.3 (5th Cir. 1997). We allow Aaron to adopt Edgar’s
argument regarding the stop of the vehicle in which both rode. We
do not allow Aaron to adopt any other arguments made in any other
appellant’s brief, and we do not allow Guadelupe to adopt any
arguments made in any other appellant’s brief.
There was no stop of the Chevrolet Lumina in which Aaron and
Edgar rode. The vehicle was stopped and its occupants were
standing outside when Agent Scott Roddy approached the vehicle.
Agent Roddy did not say or do anything before requesting a canine
that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he was not free
2
to leave. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991). No
evidence from the vehicle itself, or arising from the ultimate
detention of the vehicle or its occupants, was introduced against
Aaron and Edgar; we need not consider any contentions regarding the
detention of that vehicle or its occupants following the
conversation with Roddy. United States v. Lewis, 621 F.2d 1382,
1389 (5th Cir. 1980).
Guadelupe’s vehicle, a Chevrolet Cavalier, was stopped for
speeding; the stop was appropriate, even if the stop was
pretextual. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). The
continued detention of Guadelupe for some period was justified by
Guadelupe’s driving without a license. See Barrett v. State, 718
S.W. 2d 888, 890 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986). Guadelupe does not contend
that his detention became unreasonable at some point, see United
States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 1999); we do not
address any such issue. The canine alert to Guadelupe’s vehicle
provided probable cause to search the trunk of the car, where
marijuana was found. Id.There was substantial evidence in the record from which the
district court could have found Aaron and Aguilar guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th
Cir. 1995). The sensor pattern and the law enforcement agents’
observations indicated that the Lumina, the Shadow, and the
Cavalier traveled from Mexico in a caravan, with the Lumina acting
as a lead car and the Cavalier acting as a load car, and the
3
Cavalier was registered to Aaron. However, the defendants denied
traveling with other people in other cars. Aguilar appeared
excessively nervous to Graham after he was stopped, and the
occupants of the Lumina looked rapidly back and forth at each other
during their encounter with Roddy. Aaron and Aguilar stipulated to
the presence of around 90 kilograms of marijuana. The district
court could have inferred that Aaron and Aguilar exercised joint
and constructive possession of the marijuana in the Cavalier; that
they intended to distribute the marijuana; that the marijuana was
imported from Mexico; and that Aaron and Aguilar knowingly
participated in conspiracies to import marijuana and to possess
with intent to distribute marijuana. United States v. Cardenas, 9
F.3d 1139, 1158 (5th Cir. 1993) (possession with intent to
distribute); United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir.
1992)(inferring intent to distribute from drug amount); United
States v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th Cir. 1992)(importation
of drugs); United States v. Ayala, 887 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir.
1989)(drug conspiracy).
A F F I R M E D.
4