United States v. Esteban Pacheco Pineda, 11th Cir. (2010)
United States v. Esteban Pacheco Pineda, 11th Cir. (2010)
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-13853
MARCH 22, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ESTEBAN PACHECO PINEDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(March 22, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Esteban Pacheco Pineda appeals his convictions and sentences for drug and
firearm related offenses. We affirm.
I. Background
In early 2008, a confidential informant (CI) advised Bartow County
Sheriffs Office detective Mark Mayton that Jose Chavez was selling
methamphetamine. Mayton had worked with this CI before and knew her to be
reliable. Mayton conducted several controlled buys from Chavez before arranging
to purchase a large quantity of drugs. On the night of the scheduled buy,
the CI informed Mayton that Chavez was driving a silver Dodge pick-up truck and
might be carrying weapons. The CI later advised that there were two other cars
following the pick-up: a silver Honda Civic and a dark colored Ford Expedition.
Police surveillance corroborated the CIs information and observed these three cars
leaving Chavezs home in quick succession, with the Ford Expedition appearing to
conduct counter-surveillance. Because weapons were involved, Mayton decided
not to wait until the buy to intercept the sellers; instead, he instructed officers to
stop all three vehicles. Although the CI never mentioned Pineda to Mayton,
Pineda was driving the Ford Explorer.
Officer Billy Lancaster of the K-9 unit stopped the Ford Explorer. Pineda
gave Lancaster his Mexican drivers license and told Lancaster that he lived in
Georgia. Lancaster arrested Pineda for driving without a proper license.
Lancasters subsequent search of the Explorer uncovered a hand gun under the
front seat. Following his arrest, Pineda was interviewed by Agent Tim Everhart of
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Pineda, having been advised of
his rights, agreed to talk with Everhart. During the interrogation, Pineda admitted
the gun taken from the Explorer was his. He denied any participation with drugs.
Pineda was indicted along with Chavez and two others for conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
846 (Count 1); possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 (Count 2); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 3); and
being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(5) (Count 4).
Pineda moved to suppress the evidence seized and any statements made on
the grounds that the traffic stop and subsequent search were illegal. He argued that
the CIs information was insufficient because the CI had no knowledge of Pineda
and his mere presence was not enough to justify the stop and search.1
Pineda further argued that there was no basis to arrest him for driving without a proper
license and that the search was the result of an illegal arrest. The magistrate judge agreed that
there was no proof Pineda was driving without a proper license. Nevertheless, the magistrate
judge found that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pineda as part of the drug conspiracy
based on the CIs information and their own surveillance. The magistrate judge found the
officers subjective reason for the arrest was not relevant. Pineda does not challenge his arrest
on these grounds on appeal. Therefore, this argument has been abandoned. United States v.
Smith, 416 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
novo. United States v. Desir, 257 F.3d 1233, 1235-1236 (11th Cir. 2001). All
facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. United
States v. Goddard, 312 F.3d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir. 2002). Our review of a motion
to suppress examines the entire record, including trial testimony. United States v.
Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir. 2007). We review the constitutionality
of statutes de novo. United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir.
2000). The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments,
contains a narrow proportionality principle that applies to noncapital sentences.
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185, 155 L.Ed.2d 108
(2003) (quotations omitted).
III. Discussion
A. Motion to Suppress
On appeal, Pineda argues that the district court erred in denying his motion
to suppress because the vehicle stop by police constituted an arrest rather than a
traffic stop, and law enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest him.
Moreover, Pineda contends that the information from a confidential informant was
insufficient to justify the stop.
Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals are protected from unreasonable
searches and seizures by the government. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8, 88 S.Ct.