United States v. Steve Zuniga
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10656
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In March 2014, officers surveilling Steve Cuellar Zuniga observed a vehicle depart his residence after behavior consistent with a drug transaction; Detective Chavarria observed the vehicle fail to signal for at least 100 feet before turning.
- Detective Chavarria radioed the observed turn-signal violation; about 15–20 minutes later Officer Pruit (who had not personally observed the violation) stopped the vehicle at a supervisor’s direction. Zuniga was a passenger; the driver lacked a valid license.
- During the stop, officers discovered outstanding warrants for Zuniga, arrested him, and found methamphetamine on his person and in a backpack in the vehicle.
- Zuniga moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless stop/search; the district court denied the motion relying on the collective-knowledge doctrine and reasonable suspicion from the observed traffic violation(s).
- Zuniga pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute but reserved the right to appeal suppression. At sentencing the district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions for evading arrest and delivery of a controlled substance, producing a 327‑month sentence.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because the prior Texas delivery conviction could not serve as a § 4B1.1 predicate after Mathis/Hinkle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop/search — staleness and sufficiency of observed traffic violations | Zuniga: the turn-signal observation was stale and parking violation unconfirmed, so no reasonable suspicion supported the stop | Government: totality of circumstances (reported turn-signal violation and subsequent observations) provided reasonable suspicion; stop lawful and info imputed to stopping officer under collective-knowledge | Court held the turn-signal violation (viewed in totality) supplied reasonable suspicion; collective-knowledge doctrine imputes that suspicion to Officer Pruit; suppression denial affirmed |
| Applicability of Johnson vagueness challenge to § 4B1.2 residual clause | Zuniga: § 4B1.2’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague like ACCA’s residual clause in Johnson | Government initially agreed remand might be appropriate, but Beckles later forecloses vagueness challenges to the Guidelines | Court held Beckles controls: Guidelines are not subject to Johnson-style vagueness challenges; Johnson argument rejected |
| Whether prior Texas delivery conviction qualifies as a § 4B1.1 “controlled substance offense” after Mathis/Hinkle | Zuniga: Mathis and Hinkle show the Texas delivery statute is broader than the generic offense and is not divisible, so the conviction cannot be a predicate | Government concedes Mathis/Hinkle are dispositive but argues forfeiture; alternatively agrees remand required | Court applied Hinkle/Mathis, found the delivery conviction cannot serve as a § 4B1.1 predicate, concluded the error was plain and prejudicial, vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (review standard for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2010) (view evidence in favor of prevailing party on suppression review)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (particularized and objective basis standard)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause analysis for traffic stops)
- United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2003) (staleness analysis for parking/traffic violations)
- United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 1999) (collective-knowledge doctrine)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (collective knowledge and reasonable suspicion/probable cause)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits on modified categorical approach; alternative means ≠ alternative elements)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (applying Mathis to Texas delivery statute; prior conviction not a Guidelines controlled-substance predicate)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual‑clause vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation/intervening-warrant discussion affecting suppression remedies)