United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50365
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CARLOS SALGUERO-ACOSTA
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1915-2
--------------------
Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Salguero-Acosta (Salguero) appeals his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to
commit same. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew 167
pounds of marijuana had been hidden in his tractor-trailer.
Assuming arguendo that the marijuana was indeed “hidden” in
Salguero’s tractor-trailer, and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, United States v. Ivy, 973 F.2d
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50365
-2-
1184, 1188 (5th Cir. 1992), we hold that the following
nonexclusive list of circumstantial evidence established
Salguero’s guilty knowledge: (1) Salguero gave inconsistent
statements to authorities about his citizenship and claimed to
have lost his permanent resident card, which was later found in
his wallet; (2) Salguero appeared nervous when asked to produce
the load’s manifest; (3) neither Salguero nor his co-defendant
ever produced the manifest; (4) the men were not taking the most
direct route to their purported destination; (5) Salguero used a
suitcase full of marijuana as a pillow while purportedly sleeping
in the cab’s sleeper compartment; (6) Salguero was found in
possession of a large amount of cash, for which no COMcheck
receipt was produced and to which a canine alerted; and
(7) Salguero made a spontaneous statement during his
fingerprinting suggesting that he knew the source of the
marijuana. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 599
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 464 (2005).
The jury was free to discredit Salguero’s co-defendant’s
exculpatory testimony. See United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171,
174 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing, a reasonable
trier of fact could have found that the evidence established
Salguero’s guilty knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. See
United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 922-23 (5th Cir. 1995)
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
AFFIRMED.