IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-31207
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL ENRIQUE MATUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(97-CR-50014-1)
November 20, 1998
Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Enrique Matus appeals his guilty plea conviction of possession
with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana.
Specifically, Matus argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the drugs found in his vehicle because (1) the
officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant, (2) the
officer exceeded the scope of the traffic stop by asking to search the
vehicle, and (3) the defendant’s consent to search was not given
voluntarily.
This Court reviews a “district court’s findings of fact for clear
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
error and its conclusions of law de novo, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government, unless inconsistent with the
trial court’s findings or found to be clearly erroneous after
considering the evidence as a whole.” U.S. v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 190
(5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 144
(5th Cir. 1995). Whether consent was given voluntarily is a question
of fact which will only be reversed if clearly erroneous. See Zucco,
71 F.3d at 191; United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 438 (5th Cir.
1993). When the evidence includes credibility assessments, the standard
is applied even more deferentially. See Zucco, 71 F.3d at 191.
Matus first contends that he was stopped in violation of the Fourth
Amendment because the officer did not have probable cause. After a
careful review of the transcript from the suppression hearing, we hold
that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the
officer had probable cause to believe that Matus had executed an illegal
lane change.
Matus next argues that the officer exceeded the scope of the stop
by requesting to search the vehicle. The record shows that this request
was made while the detention was still justified by the facts justifying
the initial stop. See Zucco, 71 F.3d at 190-91; Shabazz, 993 F.2d at
438.
Finally, Matus contends that the district court erred in denying
the motion to suppress because his consent was not voluntarily given.
Specifically, Matus argues that he did not freely consent because he
could not understand English, and was not presented with an explanation
in Spanish. The record shows that in making a credibility assessment
2
based on oral testimony given at the hearing, the district court found
that Matus could understand English. Under the clearly erroneous
standard articulated by this Court in matters of credibility, the
district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
3