FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50515
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-CR-00925-DMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE RENE GARCIA-VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District
Judge.**
Defendant-Appellant Jose Rene Garcia-Vasquez (Garcia-Vasquez) appeals
his convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
841 and 846 and importation of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and
960, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain either conviction.
He also appeals the district court’s denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility
adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and challenges the substantive reasonableness
of his 87-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the
reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Border agents stopped Garcia-Vasquez at the Calexico Port of Entry as he
attempted to drive his car from Mexico into California. During the stop, the agents
discovered 10.38 pounds of 99.4%-pure methamphetamine, worth over $100,000,
in dollar-bill-sized containers lining a compartment under the car. The agents also
found a one-way Greyhound bus ticket from Los Angeles to Tijuana, dated four
days before the stop, in the glove box. Garcia-Vasquez was the driver, registered
owner, and sole occupant of the car containing the drugs. A jury convicted Garcia-
Vasquez of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and importation of
methamphetamine. Garcia-Vasquez argues that there is insufficient evidence of a
conspiracy, his intent to distribute methamphetamine, and his knowledge of the
methamphetamine in his car. We disagree.
A conspiracy “agreement need not be explicit, but may be inferred from
circumstantial evidence, and once the existence of a conspiracy is established,
2
evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt a connection of a defendant with
the conspiracy, even though the connection is slight, is sufficient to convict him
with knowing participation in the conspiracy.” United States v. Melchor-Lopez,
627 F.2d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 1980) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Evidence at trial established that Garcia-Vasquez had a distributable amount of
drugs in a highly customized compartment underneath his car. A border agent
gave expert testimony that Garcia-Vasquez’s attempted importation fit the modus
operandi of how drug cartels smuggle drugs into the United States. The agent also
testified that the drug containers found inside the compartment served a dual
purpose: they held drugs going into the United States and were the perfect size to
smuggle United States currency back into Mexico.
From this circumstantial evidence, the jury could infer that Garcia-Vasquez
was part of a conspiracy to distribute drugs. The jury could also infer Garcia-
Vasquez’s intent to distribute from the amount, purity, and value of the drugs
found in his car. See United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir.
1988) (defendant’s possession of four pounds of high-purity cocaine, worth
$100,000, was sufficient to infer intent to distribute). The jury was free to infer
Garcia-Vasquez’s knowledge of the drugs from the quantity of drugs in his car and
the fact that Garcia-Vasquez was the driver, owner, and sole occupant of the car.
3
See United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77–78 (9th Cir. 1989) (quantity); United
States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2003) (driver and sole
occupant). The jury could also infer from the one-way bus ticket that he had not
taken his car to Mexico for repairs, as he claimed, but instead went to Mexico to
knowingly procure drugs. The expert testimony, dual-purpose drug containers, and
bus ticket distinguish this case from United States v. Rubio-Villareal, 927 F.2d
1495 (9th Cir. 1991), on reh’g, 967 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
As for Garcia-Vasquez’s sentence, the district court did not err in denying
Garcia-Vasquez a § 3E1.1 adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. “This
adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its
burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt,” as
Garcia-Vasquez did. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 application note 2. That Garcia-Vasquez
went to trial to delay negative immigration consequences does not convince us
otherwise. The district court also made a sufficient record justifying Garcia-
Vasquez’s sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. We therefore cannot
say that Garcia-Vasquez’s 87-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4