IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40084
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS H. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C-97-CR-206-1)
December 2, 1998
Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Rodriguez appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with
intent to distribute marijuana. Rodriguez argues that the evidence is
insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.1 Specifically, Rodriguez
contends that (1) the government did not link him to marijuana found in
a truck driven by his stepson, Ernesto Garcia (“Garcia”), and (2) he did
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
1
The defendant complied with FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 29(c) to preserve
error on this point.
not knowingly possess marijuana found in a disabled truck in his yard.
In reviewing a claim of legal insufficiency, this Court must
determine whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the
evidence establishes the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). The evidence will be considered in the
light most favorable to the government. See Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1551
(5th Cir. 1994).
In this case, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support
a reasonable juror’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all
of the essential elements of the charged offenses. A rational trier of
fact could have found Rodriguez guilty of aiding and abetting the
possession with the intent to distribute marijuana because he provided
the vehicle and accompanied Garcia on the marijuana transportation trip.
See United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995).
Further, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict on the
charge of possession with intent to distribute because a reasonable jury
could have found that Rodriguez owned the property from which the
marijuana was confiscated. Based on his ownership of the property,
Rodriguez may be deemed to have possessed the marijuana. See United
States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct.
1817 (1998); United States v. Jones, 133 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1854 (1998). Intent to distribute can be
2
inferred from the large amounts of marijuana found in the trucks. See
Brito, 136 F.3d at 411; United States v. Williams-Hentricks, 805 F.2d
496, 502 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
3