USA v. Juan Romo-De La Rosa


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50220 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: RHB , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 03/15/2012 for Appellant Juan Fidencio Romo-De La Rosa [11-50220]

Download PDF
Case: 11-50220 Document: 00511766098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50220 Summary Calendar February 23, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JUAN FIDENCIO ROMO-DE LA ROSA, also known as Juan Roma-De La Rosa, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-20-1 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Fidencio Romo-De La Rosa challenges his conditional-guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, which resulted in a sentence of, inter alia, 46-months’ imprisonment. Romo maintains the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer, after identifying Romo as a suspect in an attempted burglary, requested his name and date of birth. He claims this questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-50220 Document: 00511766098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2012 No. 11-50220 against self-incrimination because he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). On appeal from denial of a motion to suppress, issues of law are reviewed de novo; findings of fact, for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. E.g., United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384-85 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Armijo v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 177 (2010). Assuming those findings are not clearly erroneous, whether the words or actions of law enforcement constituted “custodial interrogation” for Miranda purposes is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Chavira, 614 F.3d 127, 132 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). There is no evidence the officer knew–or grounds for contending she should have known–that her requests for Romo’s name and date of birth were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response”. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). Moreover, evidence of Romo’s identity, such as his record as a deported felon, is not subject to suppression as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. E.g., United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999). In sum, Romo has failed to identify any evidence obtained by the officer’s questioning that is subject to suppression. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?