IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41162
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-98-CR-274-1
--------------------
September 27, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandro Jimenez-Sanchez (Jimenez) argues that the district
court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the facts
presented at the suppression hearing show that Agent O’Riley did
not have a reasonable suspicion that Jimenez was involved in
criminal activity. In the context of the denial of a motion to
suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and the ultimate conclusion, that the facts supported
a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-41162
-2-
stop, de novo. United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 721 (5th
Cir. 1994).
A roving Border Patrol agent may stop a vehicle if the
agent’s observations lead him reasonably to suspect that the
occupants of a particular vehicle may be involved in criminal
activity. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881
(1975). The factors to be taken into account in determining
whether “reasonable suspicion” exists, include: the
characteristics of the area; its proximity to the border; the
usual patterns of traffic on a particular road and previous
experience with alien traffic; information about recent illegal
border crossings; the driver’s behavior; and the vehicle’s
appearance, including the type vehicle, appearance of being
heavily loaded, number of passengers, or passengers’ behavior.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884-885.
The facts articulated by Agent O’Riley show that Jimenez’s
truck was not a vehicle normally in the area, was carrying
unusable welding equipment, and could have been recently altered.
The road on which the stop was made was a known path for
contraband and Jimenez was traveling it at an unusual hour for
workmen. Finally, a check of the license showed that the truck
was registered to an automobile shop located 100 miles from the
scene. These facts are specific and were articulated in clear
terms. The district court did not err in concluding that all of
the specific facts considered together supported the stop. See
United States v. Aldaco, 168 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 1999).
No. 98-41162
-3-
The government has filed an unopposed motion to substitute
replacement photographs for exhibits missing from the record.
The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE GRANTED.