USA v. Juan Orozco-Vazquez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41546 Affirmed] Judge: CES, Judge: PRO, Judge: CH. Mandate issue date is 12/14/2017 for Appellant Juan Ismael Orozco-Vazquez [16-41546]

Case: 16-41546

Document: 00514246822

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41546
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
November 22, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN ISMAEL OROZCO-VAZQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:16-CR-133-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Ismael Orozco-Vazquez appeals his conditional guilty plea
conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine for which
he was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised
release.
In reviewing a district court’s suppression ruling, we review factual
findings for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Jaime,

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41546

Document: 00514246822

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/22/2017

No. 16-41546
473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous so
long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v.
McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2012). Facts are construed in the light
most favorable to the Government as the prevailing party on the motion to
suppress. United States v. Macias, 658 F.3d 509, 517 (5th Cir. 2011).
The district court did not clearly err in denying Orozco-Vazquez’s motion
to suppress. See Jaime, 473 F.3d at 181. Orozco-Vazquez’s detention in the
primary inspection lane was within the permissible duration of an immigration
checkpoint stop. See United States v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 431-35
(5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2