United States vs. Roblero-Mejia, No. 06-8066 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS February 26, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-8066 (D. W yoming) (D.C. No. 06-CR-33-02-B) RIG O BER TO RO BLER O-M EJIA, Defendant-Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before TACH A, Chief Circuit Judge, M URPHY, Circuit Judge, and L UN G ST RU M , ** Chief District Judge. This matter is before the court on Rigoberto Roblero-M ejia s response to this court s order to show cause. In the order to show cause, we noted RobleroM ejia pleaded guilty to a single count of illegal transportation of aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. ยง 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), preserving his right to appeal the denial * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** The Honorable John W . Lungstrum, Chief U.S. District Court Judge, District of Kansas, sitting by designation. of his motion to suppress. This court further noted that in denying RobleroM ejia s motion to suppress, the district court relied upon two alternative, but equally-sufficient, rationales: (1) the state trooper had inherent authority to enforce federal immigration laws and probable cause existed to arrest RobleroM ejia for federal immigration violations; and (2) the state trooper had probable cause to arrest Roblero-M ejia for violations of W yoming state law. Nevertheless, a close reading of Roblero-M ejia s brief on appeal reveals he only challenges the district court s conclusion that the state trooper had authority to enforce federal immigration laws, thereby waiving review of the district court s alternative conclusion that the trooper had probable cause to arrest him for violations of W yoming state law. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. M hoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that failure to raise an issue in opening appellate brief waives the issue). Finally, we noted in the show cause order that in like circumstances, this court has held that relief on appeal is foreclosed. Berna v. Chater, 101 F.3d 631, 633 (10th Cir. 1996). 1 1 W e further noted it could be argued that by proceeding to the merits of Roblero-M ejia s appeal, this court would be offering up an advisory opinion. That is, even if this court were to rule in favor of Roblero-M ejia on the question actually presented on appeal, it would not affect his rights because the district court s judgment is supported by an unchallenged, equally-sufficient rationale. Cf Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975) (holding that a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before [it] (quotation omitted)). -2- In his response to the order to show cause, Roblero-M ejia concedes he is only appealing the district court s conclusion that the W yoming Highway Patrol Trooper was entitled to enforce federal immigration laws. According to RobleroM ejia, he is only appealing that issue because that is the real reason the W yoming Highway Patrol Trooper detained him. As the Supreme Court has made clear, however, an officer s subjective motivation is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular seizure was reasonable: An action is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. Brigham City v. Stuart, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 1948 (2006) (rejecting the argument that the reasonableness of a warrantless entry into a home turns upon the officer s subjective motivation for entering) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). Thus, the particular reasons Trooper M rzny chose to detain Roblero-M ejia are irrelevant. Instead, the question is whether, viewed objectively, an officer could have detained RobleroM ejia for violations of W yoming state law. Id. The district court specifically concluded the facts, viewed objectively, demonstrated probable cause existed to detain Roblero-M ejia for violations of W yoming state law. As Roblero-M ejia makes clear in his response to the order to show cause, he does not challenge that conclusion. Thus, even if this court were to rule in his favor on the question presented on appeal, he would not be entitled -3- to relief because the district court s judgment is supported by an alternative, unchallenged justification. Berna, 101 F.3d at 633. For those reasons set out above, the order of the district court denying Roblero-M ejia s motion to suppress is AFFIRM ED. This matter is stricken from the oral argument calendar and counsel are excused from attendance at oral argument on Tuesday, M arch 6, 2007. ENTERED FOR THE COURT M ichael R. M urphy Circuit Judge -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
