United States v. Ureste-Meza ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50274
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 20, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Rafael Robles-Hernandez,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-50576
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Jose Morales-Salazar,
Defendant—Appellant,
Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2023
No. 22-50274
c/w Nos. 22-50576, 22-50580
consolidated with
_____________
No. 22-50580
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Edgar Ureste-Meza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-859-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Rafael Robles-Hernandez, Juan Jose Morales-Salazar, and Edgar
Ureste-Meza were indicted for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(1). They moved to suppress evidence regarding their being
discovered in the United States, contending they were seized unlawfully in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied their motions,
and each entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the
adverse suppression ruling.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-50274 Document: 00516682371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2023
No. 22-50274
c/w Nos. 22-50576, 22-50580
They contend the court erred by denying their suppression motion
because the Border Patrol agent who stopped the truck in which they were
riding lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and the unlawful stop
led to defendants’ discovery. E.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
873, 884 (1975) (explaining factors for determining whether reasonable
suspicion exists to execute stop).
When considering the denial of a suppression motion, the district
court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; its factual findings, for clear
error. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 33 F.4th 807, 810–11 (5th Cir. 2022).
“[W]e may affirm the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress on any
basis established in the record”. United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721
F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 2013).
We need not consider whether the court erred in its reasonable-
suspicion analysis because “[t]he ‘body’ or identity of a defendant or
respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a
fruit of an unlawful arrest”. United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345,
346 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting INS v. Lopez-Medoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039
(1984)).
AFFIRMED.
3