USA v. Rene Andrade-Rivera, No. 12-50521 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-50521 Document: 00512202696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50521 Summary Calendar April 9, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RENE OMAR ANDRADE-RIVERA, also known as Rene Omar Andrade, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5-12-CR-380-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rene Omar Andrade-Rivera (Andrade) pleaded guilty of entering the United States illegally following deportation. Andrade was arrested when his presence in the United States was discovered by Border Patrol agents during the traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from the traffic stop. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50521 Document: 00512202696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 No. 12-50521 In denying the motion to suppress, the district court agreed that the traffic stop violated Andrade s rights under the Fourth Amendment because the Border Patrol agents lacked a reasonable suspicion supporting a belief that any of the occupants of the vehicle were involved in criminal activity. The court concluded however, that the evidence that Andrade sought to suppress, that is, evidence of his identity, is not suppressible in this circuit. See United States v. HerreraOchoa, 245 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999). Andrade contends that Herrera-Ochoa and Roque-Villanueva were wrongly decided. One panel of this court may not overrule a prior decision of another panel of this court in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 496 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 648 (2012). The district court s order is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
