UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RUBEN UBIN GARZA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.
Appellant was stopped at a border checkpoint, and a border patrol agent detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from his vehicle. A search revea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pre-Indictment Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The United States District Court, sitting without a jury, convicted Ruben Ubin Garza for possession of 142 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and he appeals. We affirm the judgment below.
Appellant was stopped by a border patrol agent at the permanent checkpoint seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas. As the agent was questioning appellant and his family to determine their citizenship, the agent detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from their vehicle. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed the marijuana hidden in its luggage compartment, whereupon appellant and his wife were arrested. After being fully advised of his rights, appellant stated to another officer that he was to have been paid for transporting the marijuana to Dallas; and that his wife was innocent.
Appellant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. On facts indistinguishable from those in this case, we have recently upheld several other searches and seizures. E. g., United States v. Duncan, 5 Cir. 1977, 547 F. 2d 903 [decided February 25, 1977]; United States v. McCrary, 5 Cir. 1976, 543 F. 2d 554; United States v. Diaz, 5 Cir. 1976, 541 F. 2d 1165.
Appellant also has appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, based on 14 months’ preindictment delay. On virtually the same facts and allegations, we recently ruled adversely on the appeal of another defendant who also was named Garza. United States v. Garza, 5 Cir. 1977, 547 F. 2d 1234 is almost a dead ringer on both points.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. West, 568 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Vale, 558 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Diaz, 541 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. McCRARY, 543 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Arnoldo Cantu Garza, 547 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Duncan, 547 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1977)