Case: 23-50608 Document: 86-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 29, 2024 No. 23-50608 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jesus Miguel Medina-Flores, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-1835-2 ______________________________ Before Southwick, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Jesus Miguel Medina-Flores was convicted of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens and transporting undocumented aliens. On appeal, Medina-Flores challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence ob- tained following his detention by United States Border Patrol agents. He ar- gues that his encounter with the agents was nonconsensual and that he was

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 23-50608 Document: 86-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2024

No. 23-50608

seized when the agents parked their vehicle and began questioning him. Me- dina-Flores argues that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion for the seizure.

When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, “we review fac- tual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2022). We consider “seizure determi- nations as we do findings of fact.” United States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2003). On the other hand, “[w]hether officers had reasonable sus- picion to support an investigative stop is a question of law.” Alvarez, 40 F.4th at 344. We generally defer to factfinders who hear live testimony and uphold the district court’s ruling if any reasonable view of the evidence sup- ports it. See United States v. Wright, 57 F.4th 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2023).

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Medina-Flores’s encounter with the agents leading up to his admission of illegal presence was consensual and not a seizure. The agents remained in their vehicle during Medina-Flores’s brief conversation with the agent who was driving; none of the agents brandished their weapons or touched Medina-Flores during this conversation; and neither the agents nor their vehicle restrained Medina-Flo- res’s movement. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 203–05 (2002); see also Mask, 330 F.3d at 337 (listing non-exclusive factors for determining whether a seizure occurred). Further, there is no indication that the agent who spoke to Medina-Flores used language or a tone of voice that was intim- idating and demanded compliance. See Mask, 330 F.3d at 337. “Because the [agents’] conduct did not implicate the Fourth Amendment, it need not have been justified by reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in denying Medina-Flores’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.