(5th Cir.1999)). 4 . United States v. Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210, 213 (5th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d 668, 671 (5th Cir.1999)). 5 . United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 212 F.3d 877, 881 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Orozco, 191 F.3d at 581) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 857, 867 (5th Cir.1998) (referring to proximity to the border as a "vital element” that "contributes significantly to the reasonableness of the Border Patrol agents’ suspicions”). 6 . United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 722-23 (5th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Salazar-Martinez, 710 F.2d 1087, 1088 (5th Cir.1983), and United States v. Henke, 775 F.2d 641, 645 (5th Cir.1985)). 7 . United States v. Rodriguez-Rivas, 151 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>)- 8 . United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423,
holding that a district court is entitled to give more weight to the seriousness of the offense than to other factors recognizing same factors holding that when proximity to the border is lacking the court should look at the other factors most carefully recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis holding that an inadmissible alien is legally considered to be detained at the border and thus has no due process interest in release on parole