USA v. Minfee

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arjon Peirre Booker Minfee,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-04834-001-TUC-JCH (EJM)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 48) and Magistrate Judge
Eric J. Markovich’s related Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 62). Judge
Markovich recommends denying the Motion to Suppress. Doc. 62 at 9. Neither party
objects to the R&R. See generally Docket.
A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The advisory committee's notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state
that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept [a magistrate judge’s]
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition. See
also Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
///
Case 4:25-cr-04834-JCH-EJM Document 64 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Markovich’s
recommendation is sound. Agent Ramirez provided several distinct factors that contributed
to his decision to stop Defendant’s vehicle: Defendant was driving near the border on a
route known for smuggling, he was behaving nervously and seemed to be hyper-focused
on Agent Ramirez’s vehicle, and the vehicle had characteristics of vehicles that, in Agent
Ramirez’s training and experience, are often used for smuggling (e.g., it was an older
vehicle with temporary plates and looked to be weighed down). Under the totality of the
circumstances, these factors gave rise to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Arvizu,
534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). It is inconsequential that the factors, when viewed individually,
may be innocuous or that Defendant did not engage in any “illegal” behavior to justify an
ordinary traffic stop. See United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.
2007) (“[T]he Court has emphasized that even when factors considered in isolation from
each other are susceptible to an innocent explanation, they may collectively amount to a
reasonable suspicion.”). The Court will adopt the R&R in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 62).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 48).
Dated this 20th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:25-cr-04834-JCH-EJM Document 64 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 2