USA v. Guillermo Amador-Juarez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-51117 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010 for Appellant Guillermo Amador-Juarez [09-51117]

USA v. Guillermo Amador-Juarez Case: 09-51117

Document: 00511273693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-51117 S u m m a r y Calendar October 25, 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. G U I L L E R M O AMADOR-JUAREZ, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 2:09-CR-207-1

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* G u ille r m o Amador-Juarez appeals his convictions for possession with in t e n t to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and importation of 100 k ilo g r a m s or more of marijuana. He challenges only the sufficiency of the e v id e n c e supporting a finding of guilty knowledge. As Amador-Juarez moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case and again at the c lo s e of all the evidence, we review his claims de novo. United States v. Percel, 5 5 3 F.3d 903, 910 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2065 and 2067 (2009).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-51117 Document: 00511273693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 No. 09-51117 T h u s , we "view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and d r a w [] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict." Id. "[I]f a reasonable trier of fact could conclude [that] the elements of the offense w e r e established beyond a reasonable doubt," we must affirm. Id. B e c a u s e the marijuana was concealed within the tires and backseat of the p ic k u p truck Amador-Juarez was driving, knowledge may not be inferred solely fr o m Amador-Juarez's control of the vehicle in which the drugs were found; a d d it io n a l circumstantial evidence demonstrating guilty knowledge is needed. United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). The record

d e m o n s t r a t e s that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of AmadorJ u a r e z 's guilty knowledge. A m a d o r -J u a r e z 's exhibition of nervous behavior at the secondary in s p e c t io n area, combined with his voluntary statements before he knew the p u r p o s e of the stop, such as "It's not my vehicle[,] I'm just taking it here[,]" and " I 'm curious to know if there is something in that truck because if there is, it's n o t mine," raised an inference of guilty knowledge. See United States v.

D ia z -C a r r e o n , 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990). The fact that Amador-Juarez fa ls e ly told officials that his trip on the date in question was his first time in the t r u c k also casts doubt on the veracity of his claim that he was unaware of the p r e s e n c e of the marijuana. Similarly, Amador-Juarez's story about the purpose o f his trip (that he was going to purchase a vehicle that already was registered in his name, without knowing the vehicle's make, model, or color) and his s u b s e q u e n t change in his story (that he was going to look at the vehicle and buy it if he liked it) raised a plausible inference of guilty knowledge. Additionally, w h ile there was no evidence that Amador-Juarez drove the truck for more than t h e length of the international bridge, the jury could reasonably infer that d u r in g the time Amador-Juarez was a passenger in the truck, Amador-Juarez h e a r d the "clunk, clunk" noise in the truck's tires and/or observed the steering w h e e l vibrate. A jury also could have reasonably found Amador-Juarez's 2

Case: 09-51117 Document: 00511273693 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 No. 09-51117 r e s p o n s e that he did not know Miguel's last name, a person to whom he had g iv e n copies of his Social Security number and his driver's license, to be im p la u s ib le . A d d it io n a lly , combined with the above evidence, the value of the m a r iju a n a seized from the truck Amador-Juarez was driving, between $52,500 a n d $140,000, rendered it reasonable for the jury to deduce that he "would not h a v e been entrusted with that extremely valuable cargo if he was not part of the t r a ffic k in g scheme." United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we c o n c lu d e that a reasonable jury could have found that Amador-Juarez knew he w a s transporting drugs. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

3