United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 3, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50577
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAN ANDRES LOZANO-RUBIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-03-CR-11-2
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
San Andres Lozano-Rubio was convicted on his conditional
guilty plea of possession with possession with the intent to
distribute marijuana. He appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress and argues that the stop of the truck
which he was driving was not supported by reasonable suspicion
and, as a result, the marijuana seized and the post-arrest
statements he made should be suppressed.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.03-50577
-2-
Lozano-Rubio has waived his argument that the “helicopter
search” of his vehicle was impermissible by failing to raise it
in the district court. See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267
F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Harrelson, 705
F.2d 733, 738 (5th Cir. 1983).
The following facts, among others, were considered in
determining that there was reasonable suspicion to support the
stop of the truck which Lozano-Rubio was driving: (1) at the time
the truck was initially spotted, the truck was very close to the
border and was traveling with a white Oldsmobile, which was the
subject of a “be-on-the-lookout” report and owned by a known drug
trafficker; (2) the truck matched the description of a truck
owned by a known drug trafficker; (3) both the Oldsmobile and the
truck had two-way radio antennas attached to their roofs; (4) the
truck was stopped in an area known for illegal trafficking;
(5) the area in which the truck was traveling is known to be used
to circumvent a checkpoint; (6) the agents were experienced in
cases involving illegal aliens and controlled substances; (7)
Lozano-Rubio decelerated and accelerated for no apparent reason
and immediately braked and veered onto the shoulder of the road
when he saw a marked patrol car; (8) when a helicopter was
approximately 50 feet away from the truck, Lozano-Rubio did not
acknowledge the helicopter but merely maintained his speed; and
(9) when the truck hit bumps and turned a corner sharply, diesel
fuel was emitted from the fuel tank.
No.03-50577
-3-
As a result of the foregoing, we conclude that there was
reasonable suspicion to support the stop of the truck.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion
to suppress the seizure of the marijuana and the post-arrest
statements made by Lozano-Rubio. See United States v. Inocencio,
40 F.3d 716, 722-24 (5th Cir. 1994).
Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.