Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Sergio Rodriguez-Gomez, also known as Sergio Gomez-Rodriguez

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50478
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SERGIO RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, also known as Sergio Gomez-Rodriguez;
AMPELIO SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ,also known as Arturo Martinez-Robles
Defendants - Appellants
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-99-CR-1436-2-H
--------------------
February 19, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ampelio Sanchez-Martinez (Sanchez) and Sergio Rodriguez-
Gomez (Rodriguez) each entered a conditional guilty plea to one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine. They reserved the right to appeal
the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. We review
the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and the
ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law
enforcement action de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-50478
-2-
690, 699 (1996); United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124,
126 (5th Cir. 1993). We will not second-guess the district
court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses. United
States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997).
Sanchez argues that his consent to search arose out of his
illegal detention and was thereby tainted. Rodriguez argues that
the district court erred in concluding that Sanchez had consented
to the search. Given the required deference to the district
court’s credibility determination and the totality of the
circumstances shown by the officers’ testimony, the district
court did not clearly err in its factual findings that Sanchez
voluntarily consented to both the encounter with the police and
the search of his residence. The district court did not err in
denying the motion to suppress the results of the search. See
United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 145-46 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Morales, 171 F.3d 978, 981 (5th Cir. 1999).
Rodriguez and Sanchez challenge the testimony given by the
law enforcement officers at the suppression hearing because the
district court refused to sequester the witnesses pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 615. A party must show both an abuse of discretion
and sufficient prejudice to warrant reversal to establish a
violation of Rule 615. United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 976
(5th Cir. 1990). There has been no such showing of prejudice in
this case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --