UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 02-50115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
DANIEL ORTEGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(EP-01-CR-1043-ALL)
February 5, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Daniel Ortega appeals his jury-trial convictions for
importation of and possession with intent to distribute marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952 and 960. Ortega argues that
the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the
jury’s finding that he knowingly imported and possessed the
marijuana concealed in the rear seat of the van he was driving
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
across the border from Juarez, Mexico into the United States.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
jury’s verdict, and affirms if a rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 408 (5th
Cir. 1998). “The knowledge element for possession or importation
of drugs can rarely be proven by direct evidence.” United States
v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). When drugs are
contained in a hidden compartment, this Court requires “additional
evidence indicating knowledge – - circumstances evidencing a
consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant.” United
States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis
in original). Circumstances such as nervousness, conflicting
statements to inspection officials and an implausible story may
adequately establish consciousness of guilt. Id. at 954-55.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record
in this case, we conclude that Ortega’s inconsistent statements to
Customs officials and his nervousness during an inspection of the
area where the marijuana was discovered support a finding of a
consciousness of guilt. We therefore conclude that there existed
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Ortega
knowingly imported and possessed marijuana with the intent to
distribute.
2
AFFIRMED.
3