
    UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene Omar ANDRADE-RIVERA, also known as Rene Omar Andrade, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50521
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 9, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Bernie Martinez, Esq., San Antonio, TX, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rene Omar Andrade-Rivera (Andrade) pleaded guilty of entering the United States illegally following deportation. Andrade was arrested when his presence in the United States was discovered by Border Patrol agents during the traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from the traffic stop.

In denying the motion to suppress, the district court agreed that the traffic stop violated Andrade’s rights under the Fourth Amendment because the Border Patrol agents lacked a reasonable suspicion supporting a belief that any of the occupants of the vehicle were involved in criminal activity. The court concluded however, that the evidence that Andrade sought to suppress, that is, evidence of his identity, is not suppressible in this circuit. See United States v. Herrera-Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir.1999).

Andrade contends that Herrera-Ochoa and Roque-Villanueva were wrongly decided. One panel of this court may not overrule a prior decision of another panel of this court in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 496 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 648, 184 L.Ed.2d 465 (2012). The district court’s order is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     