IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50577
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL FERNANDO MONARREZ-LOZANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(01-CR-1900-1)
March 7, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Fernando Monarrez-Lozano (Monarrez) appeals his
convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine, importation of
cocaine, conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute,
and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. For each,
Monarrez maintains there was insufficient evidence for the jury to
find that he knew of the cocaine hidden in the vehicle in which he
was a passenger at the border with Mexico.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdict, and affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. E.g., United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 408 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1128 (1998). When drugs are contained in a
hidden compartment in a vehicle, we require “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). Indications of guilty knowledge
include: nervousness or lack thereof; failure to make eye contact;
refusal or reluctance to answer questions; and implausible
explanations. See United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 472 n.3
(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1095 (2000).
Pursuant to our review of the record, we hold there was
sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that
Monarrez knew of the hidden cocaine. Factors supporting this
conclusion include: descriptions of Monarrez’s odd behavior by the
investigating Agents; his non-responsiveness and evasive answers to
certain questions; his statements that clearly conflict with his
own prior statements and the testimony of other witnesses; and his
implausible explanation for the purpose of, and especially the
timing of, his trip into the United States.
AFFIRMED
United States v. Monarrez-Lozano
Combined Opinion