USA v. Juan Orozco-Vazquez, No. 16-41546 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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.