is of “limited significance in determining reasonable suspicion ...” and that “ ‘in all cases of this kind must be treated with caution. It is common knowledge that most citizens, ... whether innocent or guilty, when confronted by a law enforcement officer ... are likely to exhibit some signs of nervousness.’ ” Fernandez, 18 F.3d at 878 (quoting United States v. Millan-Diaz, 975 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir.1992)); see also United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d 1517, 1521 (10th Cir.1993) (“While a person’s nervous behavior may be relevant, we are wary of the objective suspicion supplied by generic claims that a[d]efendant was nervous or exhibited nervous behavior after being confronted by law enforcement officials.”); see also United States v. Wald, 216 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the court has stated that a
holding that while nervousness may be considered as part of the totality of circumstances nervousness standing alone was insufficient to expand a terry stop into an inquiry into drug activity holding that reasonable suspicion existed based on defendants nervousness expired drivers license and suspicious story regarding travel plans holding defendants nervousness in part presented officer with reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity holding nervousness is of limited significance in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists holding that extreme nervousness potentially inconsistent stories and other suspicious answers did not amount to a reasonable or articulable suspicion