United States of America v. Cruz Miguel Cazarez-Carillo

Panel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CRUZ MIGUEL CAZAREZ-CARILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50026
D.C. No.
3:21-cr-01279-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Cruz Miguel Cazarez-Carillo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
to suppress. We affirm.
The district court found that Cazarez-Carillo pulled his tractor-trailer over of
his own accord and that Agent Braun then stopped and asked if he could conduct a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 7 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Panel 2
search. The parties agree that at that point, Cazarez-Carillo consented to the
search. Based on its factual findings, the district court concluded that the entire
encounter was consensual, so Cazarez-Carillo’s Fourth Amendment rights were
not implicated. In the alternative, the district court held that, even if Agent Braun
had pulled Cazarez-Carillo over, that seizure would have been supported by
reasonable suspicion.
“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo.
Whether an encounter between a defendant and an officer constitutes a seizure is a
mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. We review the trial court’s
factual findings, however, for clear error.” United States v. Ramirez, 976 F.3d 946,
951 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We review the district
court’s credibility determinations for clear error. United States v. Vasquez, 858
F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1988).
The district court’s finding that Cazarez-Carillo pulled over his tractor-trailer
of his own accord before Agent Braun pulled in behind him was not clearly
erroneous. Agent Hatton, a radio dispatch officer, made a contemporaneous note
that Agent Braun was initiating a consensual encounter. The district court found
that Agents Braun and Hatton had no reason to make an inaccurate record and
found their testimony to be credible. The district court did not find credible
Cazarez-Carillo’s contrary testimony, in part because he had lied to agents after

-- 2 of 3 --

Panel 3
being arrested, and in part because his testimony at the suppression hearing about
what had occurred the evening of the encounter was inconsistent and unpersuasive.
These credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous.
Taking as true that Agent Braun did not pull over Cazarez-Carillo, there was
no Fourth Amendment seizure. And Cazarez-Carillo does not contest that he
consented to a search of the tractor-trailer once Agent Braun approached. Cazarez-
Carillo’s Fourth Amendment rights were therefore not violated. In light of that
conclusion, we need not reach Cazarez-Carillo’s remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --