United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41039
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUALBERTO LUIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CR-54-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gualberto Luis appeals his conviction following a jury trial
for possession with the intent to distribute 609 kilograms of
marijuana. Luis asserts that there was insufficient evidence for
the jury to conclude that he knowingly possessed the marijuana.
The Government, however, put on evidence of unusual circumstances
surrounding the shipment of produce that Luis was driving. It
was mysteriously delayed, and it was added to at one point in the
trip. In addition, Luis was nervous at the checkpoint, he gave
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41039
-2-
an implausible explanation to border patrol agents, and he tried
to leave the scene after a dog’s alert. The circumstantial
evidence of Luis’s knowledge was sufficient. See United States
v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir. 1992).
Next Luis asserts that statements made by the prosecutor
during closing arguments were plain error. We find no error
because the statements consisted of reasonable inferences that
were grounded upon the evidence admitted at trial. See United
States v. Looney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1343 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover,
assuming arguendo that the statements were improper, they did not
affect Luis’s substantial rights. The district court instructed
the jury not to consider the arguments of counsel as evidence,
and the evidence of Luis’s guilt was strong. See United States
v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 322 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 574 (5th Cir. 1999).
Finally, Luis asserts that the district court plainly erred
by admitting an incriminating statement he made after he had
invoked both his right to counsel and the right to remain silent.
Luis never invoked his right to counsel because he failed to
clearly articulate a desire to have counsel assist him. See
Soffar v. Cockrell, 300 F.3d 588, 595 (5th Cir. 2002). Although
he did clearly and unequivocally assert his right to remain
silent, government agents scrupulously honored his request to
remain silent, asking him only permissible “routine booking
questions.” See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601-02
No. 05-41039
-3-
(1990). The district court did not err in admitting the
statement because Luis voluntarily made it while fully aware of
his right to remain silent. See Soffar, 300 F.3d at 592; United
States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1997).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.