to justify the search.” United States v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Assuming the search was not routine, it is well established that, for inbound traffic, Customs Agents may conduct ‘non-routine’ searches at the border or its functional equivalent provided they reasonably suspect the traveler is smuggling contraband Roberts, 274 F.3d at 1012 (emphasis added). These non-routine border searches “are more intrusive and require a particularized reasonable suspicion before a search can be conducted.” United States v. Kelly, 302 F.3d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 2002). Non-routine border searches include body cavity searches, strip searches, and x-ray examinations. See United States v. Mejia, 720 F.2d 1378, 1381-82 (5th Cir. 1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sandler, 644 F.2d 1163, 1166
holding that evidence of defendants recruitment of single drug courier was sufficient to support section 3b11c enhancement holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case holding noknock entry justified where officers had reasonable suspicion that entering drug stash house would be dangerous and drug dealer frequenting house could not be found elsewhere holding that a canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity holding that reasonable suspicion justified abdominal xray of suspected drug courier