IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50966
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO BURCIAGA-JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(P-97-CR-100-1)
June 15, 1998
Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricardo Burciaga-Jimenez (Burciaga) entered a conditional
guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals his conviction,
challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
the marijuana found in his automobile at the time of his arrest.
Specifically, he contends that the Border Patrol’s search violated
his Fourth Amendment rights because the Border Patrol did not have
a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
vehicle.
This court employs a two-tiered standard of review in
evaluating a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress:
findings of fact are accepted unless clearly erroneous and
conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. United States v. Chavez-
Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993). This court reviews
the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party. United States v. Ponce, 8
F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).
The totality of the evidence demonstrates that prior to the
Border Patrol stopping Burciaga’s automobile, the Border Patrol was
aware of specific, articulable facts together with rational
inferences from those facts. These facts and inferences raised a
reasonable suspicion that Burciaga’s automobile was involved in
illegal activities. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
873, 884-85 (1975); United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 722
(5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the district court did not err in
denying Burciaga’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
2