IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50458
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE CONTRERAS, also known
as Carlos Corona,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-99-CR-352-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 28, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Contreras pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance with intent to distribute while reserving
the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his pretrial
motion to suppress. He argues that the border patrol agents did
not have specific articulable facts justifying an investigatory
stop and that they unreasonably exceeded the scope of an
immigration stop.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50458
-2-
The agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Contreras given
that the vehicle was capable of carrying illegal aliens or drugs,
was not local to the area, and was traveling very near the border
at an unusual time on a narrow, winding road notorious for
smuggling. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873,
884 (1975); United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 212 F.3d 877, 881
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 412 (2000). The agents were
free to ask Contreras to explain the suspicious circumstances.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 881-82. In light of Contreras’
answers, the agents did not unreasonably expand the scope of the
stop to request consent to search the truck.
Contreras also argues that the district court erred in
refusing to suppress his in-custody statement as to his true
name. Contreras has not shown that the district court plainly
erred as an individual’s identity is not suppressible. See
United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir.
1999); see also INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.