United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50656
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERTO CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CR-277-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Cruz appeals his conviction on one count of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B). Cruz argues that the evidence
was not sufficient to demonstrate that he knew that the marijuana
was present in the trailer of the tractor-trailer rig that Cruz
was driving at the time he was stopped by a Texas trooper.
To prove possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,
the Government must prove that the defendant (1) knowingly
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50656
-2-
(2) possessed marijuana (3) with intent to distribute it. See
United States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1999).
Although knowledge may be inferred from control over a vehicle in
which the marijuana is found, we require additional
circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge when the contraband
is concealed or not readily accessible, as in this case. See
United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990).
Our review of the record satisfies us that sufficient
circumstantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Cruz
exhibited extreme nervousness throughout the time he was stopped,
despite his significant experience as a trucker; Cruz informed
the state trooper that he had picked the truck up at a yard in
Laredo, but no such yard existed; the paper license tag on the
dashboard had been visibly altered; and Cruz told the trooper
that he had inspected the cargo and sealed the doors.
In addition, the jury reasonably could have believed that
drug dealers would not entrust such a large quantity of drugs to
a stranger without providing delivery information. The jury
similarly could have found Cruz’s story that he was recruited by
a large trucking company over the telephone to pick up an
abandoned truck at a truck stop and deliver it to Dallas to be
implausible. See, e.g., United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d
463, 466 (5th Cir. 1999) (defendant’s nervousness, implausible
story, and quantity of drugs supported jury finding of guilty
knowledge).
No. 04-50656
-3-
Although Cruz disputed much of the trooper’s testimony, the
jury was free to make its own credibility determinations, and its
determinations were rational in light of the record as a whole.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,
as we must, see United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543
(5th Cir. 1998), we find that the evidence was sufficient.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.