USA v. Robert Trautman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-50991 Affirmed, 09-50992 Affirmed] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 10/06/2010 for Appellant Robert Vincent Trautman [09-50991, 09-50992]

USA v. Robert Trautman

Doc. 0

Case: 09-50991

Document: 00511234443

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50991 c /w No. 09-50992 S u m m a r y Calendar September 15, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. R O B E R T VINCENT TRAUTMAN, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a ls from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 3:06-CR-2623-1 U S D C No. 3:08-CR-2967-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o b e r t Vincent Trautman appeals his jury trial convictions for conspiracy t o import marijuana, importation of marijuana, and possession of marijuana w it h intent to distribute and the concomitant revocation of supervise release re la te d to a prior conviction for importation of marijuana. Trautman argues that t h e evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-50991

Document: 00511234443 Page: 2 No. 09-50991 c /w No. 09-50992

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

in s u ffic ie n t evidence showing that he knew there was marijuana in the van he b r o u g h t into the United States. He maintains that the revocation of his

s u p e r v is e d release, based upon his new convictions, was erroneous because the e v id e n c e was insufficient to support his new convictions. T r a u t m a n 's motions for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the G o v e r n m e n t 's case and at the close of the evidence preserved for review his c h a lle n g e to the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F .3 d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will uphold the jury's verdict if a r e a s o n a b le trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the o ffe n s e were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U .S . 307, 319 (1979). The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is viewed in t h e light most favorable to the jury's verdict. See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 4 5 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995). T h e sole issue raised on appeal is Trautman's knowledge of the drugs, an e le m e n t necessary for each of his convictions. See United States v. Maltos, 985 F .2 d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th C ir . 1999); United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993). "Ordinarily, knowledge of the existence of drugs may be inferred from control o v e r the location in which they are found. When the drugs are secreted in a h id d e n compartment, however, we require additional circumstantial evidence t h a t is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge." Moreno, 185 F .3 d at 471 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). C o n s t r u in g the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the ev id en c e showed that Trautman initially told Officer Susanna Flores that he was e n te r in g the United States to visit his daughter, a story inconsistent with his la t e r claim that he was traveling to the United States to give the van to Roberto A lv a r e z . Furthermore, Trautman's claim that he did not know that there was m a r iju a n a in the van even though he was supposed to drive the van into the 2

Case: 09-50991

Document: 00511234443 Page: 3 No. 09-50991 c /w No. 09-50992

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

U n ite d States and then give it to Alvarez, a man he had never met, was im p la u s ib le at best. Additionally, Trautman acted nervously and did not make e y e contact during the initial inspection of the van by Officer Flores. While there w a s no evidence presented showing that Trautman had possession of the van for a long period of time, the testimony of Officer Lynn Santiago indicated that the a lt e r a tio n to the interior roof of the van was obvious even if one was in the van fo r a short period of time. Finally, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that T r a u t m a n would not have been entrusted to possess the 104 pounds of m a r iju a n a in the van unless he was involved in the drug smuggling conspiracy. See United States v. White, 219 F.3d 442, 447-48 (5th Cir. 2000). Although T r a u t m a n argues that there are innocent explanations for each of these factors in d iv id u a lly , the totality of the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to in fe r that Trautman knew that the marijuana was in the van. See United States v . Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 466-67 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Trautman h a s not shown that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. See id . As Trautman has not shown that his new convictions were invalid, he has n o t shown that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised r e le a s e . See United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 481 (5th Cir. 2005). A F F IR M E D .

3