
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rigoberto LAIJA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50260.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 7, 2004.
    
      Mara A. Blatt, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rigoberto Laija-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, ie., more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and making a false statement. Laija-Garcia argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after the stop of his car by a Border Patrol agent.

Laija-Garcia was stopped at approximately 1:00 a.m. by an experienced Border Patrol agent who observed him driving slowly near the border in an area frequented by drug traffickers on a dead-end road typically used only by ranchers during daylight hours. The agent testified that, when he shone a flashlight on LaijaGarcia, Laija-Garcia’s eyes opened wide, he turned his body away, and he accelerated past the agent towards the dead end. Additionally, the agent was aware that, on at least two recent occasions, drug smugglers had successfully imported drugs through the same area, and the stop occurred soon after a sensor alarm had sounded and near four large bundles of marijuana.

Thus, the totality of the circumstances indicates that the Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot. See United States v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374, 378-80 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     