UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-40563
UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
PAULIN SANCHEZ-ROCHA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(L-95-16-01)
April 8, 1996
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Pauline Sanchez-Rocha was charged with three counts of
inducing aliens to enter the United States illegally, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(D). Sanchez-Rocha moved to suppress
evidence obtained after the stop of his vehicle by border patrol
agents. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court
denied the motion, holding that the agents had sufficient
reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and alternatively that
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
the agents had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that
they were justified in making the stop. Sanchez-Rocha entered a
conditional plea of guilty to the first count of the indictment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), preserving
his right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion to
suppress. The district court sentenced Sanchez-Rocha to 175 days
of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $200
fine. Sanchez-Rocha timely appealed.
In his brief to this court, Sanchez-Rocha attacks the district
court’s conclusion that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop
him. He does not, however, assert error as to the district court’s
alternative conclusion that the agents possessed a reasonably
objective good faith belief that the stop was justified. While
this court construes briefs liberally when determining the issues
presented for review, issues not raised at all are waived. United
States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171, 178 (5th Cir. 1995); United States
v. Musa, 45 F.3d 922, 925 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Bermea,
30 F.3d 1539, 1572 (5th Cir. 1994), certs. denied, __ U.S. __, __,
115 S.Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995). See also United States v. Miles, 10
F.3d 1135, 1137 n.3 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e caution counsel to state
specifically in the opening brief the issues raised on appeal; the
failure to do so will usually result in our not considering
them.”). Accordingly, because Sanchez-Rocha has failed to raise as
error in this court the application of the good-faith exception to
the exclusionary rule, we do not review this portion of the
2
district court’s ruling.2 Thus, the denial of Sanchez-Rocha’s
motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
2
To raise the issue would not have aided Appellant’s cause since
the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Ramirez-Lujan, 976 F.2d
930 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 987 (1993).
3