IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40628
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CESAR ANIBAL MORAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CR-337-1
July 1, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cesar Anibal Moran appeals his convictions for two counts of
possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of
cocaine. Specifically, Moran contends that the government failed
to prove as to both Counts One and Two that he knew the vehicles in
both offenses were loaded with cocaine. He also asserts that his
conviction for the Mississippi offense (Count Two) should be
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
vacated since the contraband in that case was never analyzed by the
state crime laboratory.
To prove possession of a controlled substance, here cocaine,
with intent to distribute, the government must show beyond a
reasonable doubt (1) knowing (2) possession of cocaine (3) with
intent to distribute.1 We have reviewed the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and conclude that the evidence presented
at trial was sufficient to support the knowing element for both
convictions, based on, inter alia, the implausible story offered by
Moran that he twice unwittingly purchased vehicles loaded with
cocaine hidden in each vehicle’s battery and the quantity and
street value of the seized cocaine.2 Additionally, there was
sufficient evidence, particularly the testimony of Captain Victor
Smith based on his field test, to support the jury’s determination
that the substance Moran was charged with possessing with the
intent to distribute under Count Two of the superseding indictment
was cocaine, despite the absence of an official laboratory report.3
AFFIRMED.
1
United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 389 (5th
Cir. 2001).
2
See United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 466 (5th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55
(5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155,
157-58 (5th Cir. 1983).
3
See United States v. Benbrook, 40 F.3d 88, 93-94 (5th Cir.
1994).
2