United States v. Aguilar-Alvarez

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D In the January 4, 2007 United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III for the Fifth Circuit Clerk _______________ m 06-50131 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS EDGAR BENJAMIN AGUILAR-ALVAREZ, ALSO KNOWN AS EDGAR AGUILAR-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas m 3:03-CR-1051-12 ______________________________ Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, A jury found Edgar Aguilar-Alvarez guilty Circuit Judges. of knowinglypossessing marihuana with intent to distribute. He appeals, arguing that the evi- JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:* dence was insufficient to prove he knew that he possessed marihuana. Because the evi- dence was sufficient, we affirm. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de- I. termined that this opinion should not be published Aguilar-Alvarez was driving a tractor-trail- and is not precedent except under the limited cir- er rig that New Mexico Department of Trans- cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. portation inspectors searched in response to a Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) ing the usual route from California to Wiscon- alert identifying the trailer as possibly trans- sin.3 Finally, the tractor-trailer was very porting drugs. The inspectors found mari- cleanSSthe outside lacked the dirt, mud, and huana hidden in cardboard boxes placed bugs typical of a trip from Los Angeles to among legitimate cargo. New Mexico, and the inside lacked the usual fast food trash, bedding, and maps.4 The DEA sent the alert to other members of law enforcement about the tractor-trailer Aguilar-Alvarez consented to a search of Aguilar-Alvarez was driving, because a DEA the trailer, where law enforcement officers agent observed the rig parked in front of a found plain cardboard boxes containing mari- warehouse the DEA had under surveillance.1 huana among other legitimate cargo listed in The tractor-trailer arrived at the warehouse the bill of lading. Aguilar-Alvarez stated he early in the afternoon of August 31, 2002, and did not know marihuana was there; he said he left about two hours later. No one testified at was not present when the trailer was loaded; trial that Aguilar-Alvarez was present at the he assumed it had been loaded before he began warehouse. his journey in California. Finally, he indicated that he was at a truck station in the tractor- A transfer station inspector recognized the trailer almost all day August 31, 2002SSthe tractor-trailer from the alert and informed Ag- day DEA agents observed the trailer at the uilar-Alvarez that his vehicle would be in- warehouse they had under surveillance. spected. Part of the inspection resulted in normal, unsuspicious discoveries: The licence An indictment charged Aguilar-Alvarez for the trailer matched paperwork Aguilar- with conspiracy to possess marihuana with in- Alvarez had provided; the cargo area was tent to distribute it and knowingly possessing sealed and undisturbed; and the manifest did marihuana with intent to distribute it. A jury not suggest any criminal activity. Other as- found him guilty of possession with intent to pects of the inspection, however, yielded sus- distribute, but the district court declared a mis- picious results. Aguilar-Alvarez told the in- trial on the charge of conspiracy to possess spector he was coming from Los Angeles, but with intent to distribute. Aguilar-Alvarez ap- in fact he was headed westbound. His log peals, challenging the sufficiency of the evi- books likely understated the time required to dence that he had knowledge of the marihana. travel different subsections of his trip to New Mexico, and they did not contain the name of II. the shipper. Further, Aguilar-Alvarez could not provide the phone number of the company 2 for which he worked, 2 and he was not travel (...continued) that he had just taken this job two days earlier. 3 Aguilar-Alvarez stated that his boss accompa- 1 The agent identified Aguilar-Alvarez’s tractor- nied him and instructed him to stop in El Paso so trailer by the numbers on the front of the vehicle his boss could pick up a vehicle to drive to McAl- and a design on the door. len, Texas. 2 4 Aguilar-Alvarez told law enforcement agents Aguilar-Alvarez indicated he had not used the (continued...) truck stop’s car wash. 2 We must decide whether any reasonable We have held a various types of circum- trier of fact could have found that the evidence stantial evidence sufficient to prove knowledge established the essential elements of the crime of contraband in cases involving drugs in hid- beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. den compartments, such as evidence of ner- Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. vousness, refusal to answer questions, and in- 1998) (per curiam). Considering the evidence consistent statements. See id. (summarizing in the light most favorable to the government, the various types of circumstantial evidence we draw all reasonable inferences and credi- sufficient to prove knowledge in hidden com- bility choices in support of the verdict. Id. partment cases). Specifically, a defendant of- The jury is free to choose among reasonable fering implausible explanations for the situa- constructions of the evidence, but if the evi- tion is sufficient circumstantial evidence to dence tends to give equal or nearly equal cir- support a conviction of knowingly possessing cumstantial support to guilt and to innocence, drugs. E.g., United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d we must reverse, because a reasonable jury 600, 606 (5th Cir. 1994). A defendant’s de- would have reasonable doubt when the evi- cision to lie to law enforcement officers can dence is essentially in balance. Id. constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to support an inference of guilty knowledge. The government was required to prove, United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 465 (5th beyond a reasonable doubt, that Aguilar-Al- Cir. 1999). varez (1) knowingly (2) possessed marihuana (3) with the intent to distribute it. United Aguilar-Alvarez offered implausible expla- States v. DeLeon, 247 F.3d 593, 596 (5th Cir nations and lied to officers. This circumstantial 2001). Only the first element is at issue here. evidence sufficiently supports the jury’s infer- ence that Aguilar-Alvarez knowingly pos- Generally, a jury may infer knowledge of sessed the drugs. the presence of drugs from the exercise of control over a vehicle containing drugs. Unit- His claim that he was traveling from Los ed States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 Angeles is implausible under t he (5th Cir. 1995). If the drugs are hidden in a circumstances. Not only was he headed in the compartment, we normally require additional wrong direction, the tractor-trailer was clean, circumstantial evidence that raises suspicion or lacking the characteristics of a long trip. More demonstrates guilty knowledge. Id. We rec- importantly, he lied to officials about being in ognize that in hidden compartment cases, there his tractor-trailer on August 31, 2002; he said “is at least a fair assumption that a third party he remained in the tractor-trailer all day Au- might have concealed the controlled substanc- gust 31, except for trips into the truck shop to es in the vehicle with the intent to use the un- make purchases. DEA agents, however, iden- witting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling tified the tractor-trailer as the rig that arrived enterprise.” United States v. Diaz-Carreon, at the warehouse and spent several hours there 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990). “This as- that afternoon. 5 This circumstan sumption is heightened when . . . the vehicle is a ‘loaner’ or has otherwise been in the posses- sion of the suspect for only a short time.” Or- 5 Unlike the situation in Ortega-Reyna, in which tega-Reyna, 148 F.3d at 544. we held the evidence of knowledge was insufficient (continued...) 3 tial evidence supports an inference of guilty knowledge of drug possession. AFFIRMED. 5 (...continued) because the circumstances permitted benign infer- ences, here there is not “an equal and opposite benign inference to be drawn” from Aguilar-Alvar- ez’s lie. Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d at 545. Lying to officials is not “at least as consistent with inno- cence as guilt.” Id. at 546. 4