UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50935
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REMIGIO GOMEZ-SOSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(P-00-CR-34-2)
August 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Remigio Gomez-Sosa appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine and aiding
and abetting the possession with intent to distribute marijuana and
cocaine. Gomez contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain
the convictions because the Government did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt he knew of the narcotics concealed on his
codefendant and in a car driven by her. Because Gomez moved for a
judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case and
rested without presenting evidence, the standard for evaluating the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
sufficiency of the evidence is “whether any reasonable trier of
fact could have found that the evidence established the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of
the verdict”. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543
(5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
Gomez’s codefendant testified: she and Gomez traveled to
Mexico together for the express purpose of obtaining unspecified
drugs; and she told Gomez she had obtained “stuff” concealed in the
car she would be driving back. The Government did not need to
prove Gomez knew the specific narcotics his codefendant had
obtained. See United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344,
345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 894 (1999). The jury could
infer from other witnesses’ testimony that the pattern of movement
of the two vehicles on return to the United States was consistent
with a lead car/load car (smuggling) scenario. This inference was
fortified by Gomez’s implausible denial that he was traveling with
his codefendant. See United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951,
954-55 (5th Cir. 1990). In sum, the evidence was sufficient for
the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez conspired
with his codefendant and aided and abetted the possession of
narcotics with the intent to distribute them. See United States v.
Williams, 985 F.2d 749, 753-54 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
850 (1993); United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1476 (5th Cir.
1989).
2
AFFIRMED
3