Barrera-Medina

United States v. Barrera-Medina

Good Law
139 F. App'x 786
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 7, 2005Nos. 03-10455, 03-10457 to 03-10461California8,246 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*789 MEMORANDUM **

Defendants-Appellants Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina, Miguel HernandezMunguia, Martin Perez-Estrada, Lino Hernandez, Timoteo Valle, Jr., and Gabriel Ortiz-Villalobos appeal their convictions and sentences for various drug and firearm offenses relating primarily to a conspiracy to purchase approximately one million pseudoephedrine pills to manufacture methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm in part and grant a limited remand in part. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not repeat it here except to the extent necessary for our disposition.

I.

Hernandez-Munguia, Perez-Estrada, Timoteo Valle, Jr., and Ortiz-Villalobos (the “Intrepid Defendants”) argue that the district court erred in finding that there was probable cause to effect their warrant-less arrest and, thus, erred in denying their motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the Dodge Intrepid in which they were driving at the time of their arrest. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusion that probable cause existed; we review the underlying facts as found by the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.