UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-40611
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ELISEO PIZANA-TREVINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(B-96-CR-322-1)
February 17, 1998
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Eliseo Pizana-Trevino of possession with
intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The district court imposed a 63-month
term of imprisonment, to be followed by a four-year term of
supervised release. Pizana-Trevino’s principal contention on
appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
We will not disturb a conviction attacked on the basis of the
sufficiency of the evidence if, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.2 The government had the burden of proving that Pizana-
Trevino knowingly possessed marijuana and intended to distribute
it.3 The government proceeded on a constructive possession theory,
which required it to show that Pizana-Trevino exercised ownership,
dominion or control over the marijuana itself, or dominion over the
premises in which the marijuana was concealed.4
While Pizana-Trevino was attending a wedding out of town,
Cameron County Sheriff’s deputies discovered approximately 610
pounds of marijuana inside a bedroom of the trailer home he owned
and in which he lived at the time. They also discovered black
plastic bags and rolls of clear plastic that had been concealed
beneath a bed in the same room. At trial, Narcotics Investigator
Ricardo Perez testified that smugglers often transport narcotics
across the river and store them in “stash houses” before further
transporting them to other locations farther north or locally.
Jurors also heard testimony that the marijuana had a street value
of up to $600,000. Pizana-Trevino testified that he could not
2
Guzman v. Lensing, 934 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir. 1991).
3
United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993).
4
United States v. Cardenas, 748 F.2d 1015, 1019 (5th Cir.
1984).
2
explain the presence of the marijuana in his trailer. In short, he
denied having any involvement with the contraband. Considering the
impressive amount and value of the marijuana, however, the jury
could reasonably have inferred that Pizana-Trevino arranged to have
his home used as a “stash house,” and that he knew the marijuana
would be delivered to his home while he and his family were
attending a function out of town. Sufficient evidence supports the
verdict.
AFFIRMED.
3