United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40933
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAFAEL GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(5:03-CR-1727-1)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rafael Gonzalez was convicted of possessing with intent to
distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana and sentenced, inter
alia, to 42 months in prison. He claims the district court erred,
following an evidentiary hearing, in denying his motion to suppress
the marijuana seized from his vehicle. Regarding the denial of a
motion to suppress, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party; the district court’s findings of fact are
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
reviewed for clear error; and its conclusions of law, de novo.
United States v. Santiago, 310 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2002).
Gonzalez first contends there was no reasonable suspicion to
detain him for an immigration check. Assuming Gonzalez was
detained when Border Patrol Agent Ramos first encountered him at a
highway rest area close to the border, reasonable suspicion existed
to justify the check: Agent Ramos was responding to a sensor alert
close to the border and near the rest area; and the geographical
area is a high crime area known for illegal alien and drug
trafficking. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884-85
(1975).
Gonzalez next asserts the district court impermissibly
considered his decision to decline consent to remain at the scene
in determining whether reasonable suspicion was present to justify
his detention. After reviewing the record, we discern no error.
The district court credited Agent Ramos’ testimony that Gonzalez
gave an inconsistent statement when he asked Gonzalez for consent.
The district court considered not that Gonzalez refused consent;
rather, the court considered the fact that he gave inconsistent
statements, along with the characteristics of the area and its
proximity to the border, in determining reasonable suspicion
justified the detention while the Agent ran his canine unit around
the vehicle.
2
Finally, Gonzalez contends the canine was not properly trained
to alert reliably to the presence only of drugs. This issue is
unavailing. United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1182 (1996). He requests this panel
overrule Williams. Of course, absent an intervening change in the
law, a panel may not do so. See United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d
675, 676 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED
3