United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41570
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEVERIANO PEREZ-MOLINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-608-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Severiano Perez-Molina (Perez) appeals his conviction for bulk
cash smuggling. Perez argues that the evidence presented at trial
was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew
that a large amount of currency was hidden in the fuel tank of the
vehicle he was driving. The Government, he argues, failed to prove
that he had the intent to evade reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C.
§ 5316. He also contends that the Government failed to show that
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
he attempted to transport the currency outside the United States.
Although the jury may ordinarily infer the defendant’s guilty
knowledge from his control over a vehicle containing contraband, if
the contraband is contained in a hidden compartment, as in this
case, this court requires additional circumstantial evidence that
demonstrates guilty knowledge. United States v. Villarreal,
324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2003).
Perez exhibited nervous behavior during the canine search of
his vehicle and during questioning. Based on the actions of Perez
in this regard, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Perez
was nervous concerning the discovery of currency in the fuel tank.
See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir.
1998). Perez provided inconsistent statements to law enforcement
authorities, also evidencing guilty knowledge. See United States
v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55 (5th Cir. 1990).
Additionally, Perez’s explanations and details were implausible.
See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 544. Finally, the amount and value
of the currency, over $900,000, discovered in the fuel tank of the
vehicle in his possession supports the jury’s finding of guilty
knowledge. The jury could have rationally inferred that Perez
would not have been entrusted with such valuable cargo if he had
not been a knowing participant in cash smuggling. See Villarreal,
324 F.3d at 324. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
allow a rational jury to find that Perez had knowledge of the large
2
amount of currency in his possession and had the intent to evade
reporting requirements. See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543.
Perez also argues that the Government failed to prove that he
attempted to transport the currency outside the United States
because the Government did not show that he was involved in money
laundering. Perez was not charged with money laundering, and the
Government was not required to prove that he engaged in money
laundering activities. The Government did present evidence to show
that Perez attempted to transport the currency into Mexico.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3