United States v. Ahumada

• Decision Date: 05 June 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-1391,16-1391
• Citation: 858 F.3d 1138
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Charles AHUMADA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

858 F.3d 1138

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Charles AHUMADA, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 16-1391

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 14, 2016
Filed: June 5, 2017
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 15, 2017

Counsel who represented the appellant was Kent Michael Morrow of Bismarck, ND.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Rick Lee Volk, AUSA, of Bismarck, ND.

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Charles Ahumada was convicted of two drug trafficking offenses after the district court¹ denied Ahumada's motion to suppress heroin seized during the search of his rental vehicle. On appeal, Ahumada challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and argues that there was insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions. We affirm.

I.

This case arises from a traffic stop conducted on December 29, 2014, by North Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper Jeremie Meisel. Ahumada was a passenger in a car driven by Frank Villa on Interstate 94. Meisel stopped the vehicle for speeding.

Meisel asked Villa to accompany him to his patrol car. Meisel ran a computer check on Villa and issued him a warning for speeding. He also asked if Villa would consent to a dog sniff or a search of the vehicle, but Villa refused. Meisel then retrieved a drug-detection dog from his patrol car and led the dog around Villa's vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs as it passed the driver's door.

Meisel began to search the car and found three used syringes in a black leather bag in the trunk. Villa admitted that the syringes were his and that he used them to take drugs. Meisel arrested Villa and allowed Ahumada to leave. The state patrol then towed the car to a regional office, and officers continued the search. Meisel eventually found over four-and-a-half pounds of heroin in the roof of the trunk.

A grand jury charged Villa and Ahumada with one count of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ahumada moved to suppress the seized heroin, arguing that Meisel violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted in Rodriguez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). He argued that Meisel, by extending the duration of the traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff around the vehicle, effected an unreasonable seizure. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the seizure was permissible under binding appellate precedent at the time of the incident, and that the later-issued Rodriguez decision did not justify excluding the evidence.

A jury then found Ahumada guilty, and the district court imposed sentence. In reviewing the denial of Ahumada's motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo . United States v. Bell , 480 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2007). Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence, we will uphold a conviction if a reasonable juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond

858 F.3d 1140

a reasonable doubt. United States v. Washington , 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003).

II.

There is no dispute that Trooper...