United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 27, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50139
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross - Appellee
v.
CARLOS MOLINAR SANCHEZ
Defendant - Appellee - Cross - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-01-CR-35-5
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Molinar Sanchez appeals his convictions of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of
marijuana and aiding and abetting possession with intent to
distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and the
Government appeals the district court’s application of the
safety-valve provision, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-50139
-2-
Sanchez argues that the evidence was not legally sufficient
to support a conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. At trial,
evidence was adduced that established the existence of a large-
scale marijuana-trafficking conspiracy, led by Sanchez’s cousin.
Although Sanchez testified that he was innocent of the charged
crimes and presented witnesses who testified as to his law-
abiding character, the jury was entitled to find the Government’s
witnesses’ testimony credible. See United States v. Martinez,
975 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1992). Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable trier of
fact could have found that the evidence established that Sanchez
was a member of the conspiracy. See United States v. Ortega
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
Sanchez also argues that the evidence was not legally
sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting
possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of
marijuana. Because Sanchez had dominion over the premises where
the drugs were stored and repackaged, the jury could find that
Sanchez had aided in the possession of or constructively
possessed the drugs. See United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425,
1429 (5th Cir. 1989). The jury could infer an intent to
distribute because of the large amount of drugs involved. See
United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir. 1992). The
jury also could have found that, by helping in the loading and
No. 02-50139
-3-
unloading of the drugs, Sanchez was aiding the intent to
distribute. See United States v. Williams, 985 F.2d 749, 753
(5th Cir. 1993). The evidence was sufficient to support the
convictions. See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543.
The Government argues that the district court erred in
granting the safety-valve reduction because Sanchez failed to
truthfully debrief the Government. The district court did not
clearly err in implicitly finding that Sanchez had testified
about everything he knew about the conspiracy and applying the
safety-valve provision. See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d
143, 145 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.