United States v. Lopez-Monzon

• Decision Date: 01 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. 15-41547,15-41547
• Citation: 850 F.3d 202
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Hector Feliciano LOPEZ-MONZON, Defendant–Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

850 F.3d 202

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Hector Feliciano LOPEZ-MONZON, Defendant–Appellant

No. 15-41547

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED March 1, 2017

Jimmy Eric Pardue, Renata Ann Gowie, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Paul Eunkuk Kim, U.S. Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant–Appellant

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

Hector Feliciano Lopez-Monzon appeals from his convictions for possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and importing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only as to the knowledge element of his convictions. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I

Lopez-Monzon, accompanied by Luis Fernando Rivera-De Leon, brought two tractor-trailers to Hotel Pena in Mexico, located near the United States border. Lopez-Monzon hired Juan Buentello-Garcia and Santiago Guadiana, freelance truck drivers, to drive the tractor-trailers into the United States. On December 26, 2014, Buentello-Garcia drove the first tractor-trailer—a white Freightliner with a car hauler ("Freightliner")—with instructions to leave it at Transmigrante Mireya, a business located just inside the United States border. Guadiana did not drive the second tractor-trailer into the United States because it had a mechanical problem.

Buentello-Garcia entered the United States at the Los Indios, Texas port of entry. During an inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP"), liquid methamphetamine was discovered in the Freightliner's passenger-side fuel tank.

Buentello-Garcia was arrested, and in his interview he asserted that he was unaware that the fuel tank contained methamphetamine. A specialist later calculated that a total of 200.3 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride had been dissolved in the 100-gallon fuel tank, resulting in 411.4 kilograms of a substance containing methamphetamine. That amount of methamphetamine was worth up to $3 million in Houston, Texas. When Guadiana learned of Buentello-Garcia's arrest, he refused to drive the second tractor-trailer into the United States.

The next day, Lopez-Monzon and De Leon entered Texas on foot at the Los Indios Bridge port of entry. Later that day, at a gas station near the port of entry, Lopez-Monzon approached CBP Agent Jaime Vidal about the Freightliner. Lopez-Monzon identified himself as the owner of the Freightliner. Agent Vidal called for backup and escorted Lopez-Monzon and De Leon to the customs area.

Homeland Security Investigations Agent Angelico Santiago interviewed Lopez-Monzon and De Leon. Lopez-Monzon was nervous and anxious during the interview. Lopez-Monzon told Agent Santiago that he owned the Freightliner, and that he had bought the Freightliner with a man named Ruben "four to five months" earlier. He asserted that he did not know about the methamphetamine in the fuel tank, and that "if someone had put something in the gas tank, it would have been Ruben."

Lopez-Monzon also told Agent Santiago that he and De Leon traveled together from Guatemala. He said that De Leon drove the Freightliner, and that Lopez-Monzon "follow[ed]" in a Ford F-150 pickup truck. Lopez-Monzon admitted that "he noticed that one of the tanks was not functioning properly" but told Agent Santiago that the defective fuel tank "did not bother him." Lopez-Monzon explained that "he thought that the tank was full and the fuel inside was left there by ... the previous owner."

Lopez-Monzon and Buentello-Garcia were charged with four counts: (1) conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) ("Count One"); (2) possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ("Count Two"); (3) conspiring to import 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a) and 960(b)(1) ("Count Three"); and (4) importing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), and 960(b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ("Count Four"). The government dropped the charges against Buentello-Garcia after further investigation, and he was instead considered a material witness. Lopez-Monzon pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The government presented numerous exhibits and extensive testimony during a three-day jury trial. Lopez-Monzon moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government's case in chief, and again at the close of all evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). The district court denied those motions. The jury found Lopez-Monzon guilty of Counts Two and Four and not guilty of Counts One and Three. Lopez-Monzon again moved for a judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c). The district court again denied his motion.

The district court sentenced Lopez-Monzon to 292 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Lopez-Monzon timely appealed. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only as to the knowledge element of his convictions.

II

This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Rojas Alvarez , 451 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 2006).

III

"A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict." United States v. Lucio , 428 F.3d 519, 522 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Medina , 161 F.3d 867, 872 (5th Cir. 1998) ). This court "owe[s] great deference" to the jury's verdict. United States v. Gray , 96 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

This court must assume that the evidence offered by the prosecution is true, Rojas Alvarez , 451 F.3d at 326, and weigh the evidence "in a light most deferential to the verdict rendered by the jury." Lucio , 428 F.3d at 522. To uphold the conviction, "the evidence need not exclude every hypothesis of innocence." United States v. Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 953–54 (5th Cir. 1990). "[I]f the fact finder was presented with sufficient evidence to support the verdict reached, that verdict must be upheld." Lucio , 428 F.3d at 522. "A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence." Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d at 954 (quoting United States v. Bell , 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)). This court does not determine "whether the jury correctly determined guilt or innocence" but only "whether the jury made a rational decision." Rojas Alvarez , 451 F.3d at 326 (quoting United States v. Lopez – Urbina , 434 F.3d 750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005) ).

To sustain a conviction for the crime of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, the government must prove: "(1) knowledge, (2) possession, and (3) intent to distribute the controlled substance." United States v. Patino-Prado , 533 F.3d 304, 309 (5th Cir. 2008). To sustain a conviction for the crime of importation of a controlled substance, the government must prove: "(1) the defendant played a role in bringing a quantity of a controlled substance into the United States from outside of the country; (2) the defendant knew the substance was controlled; and (3) the defendant knew the substance would enter the United States." United States v. Moreno , 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999). Lopez-Monzon challenges only the knowledge element of his convictions, arguing that the government failed to prove that he knew methamphetamine was concealed in the fuel tank.

"The necessary knowledge and intent can be proved by circumstantial evidence." United States v. Rodriguez , 993 F.2d 1170, 1175 (5th Cir. 1993). "[K]nowledge of the presence of a controlled substance may be inferred from the exercise of control over a vehicle in which the illegal substance is concealed." Id. But where drugs are concealed in a hidden compartment, this court "also require[s] circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge." United States v. Shabazz , 993 F.2d 431, 441 (5th Cir. 1993). Such circumstantial evidence may include evidence of "consciousness of guilt, conflicting statements, or an implausible account of events." Rojas Alvarez , 451 F.3d at 334 (citing Rodriguez , 993 F.2d at 1175 ). But this court has explicitly declined to limit the relevant circumstantial evidence to "a defendant's nervousness, implausible explanations, and inconsistent statements, or matters similar or analogous thereto." United States v. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d 907, 912 (5th Cir. 1995). Viewing the evidence as a whole, this court holds that the evidence is sufficient to support Lopez-Monzon's convictions.

A

"Inconsistent statements are inherently suspicious." Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d at 955. Such statements, whether inconsistent with previous statements or with other evidence, are circumstantial evidence of knowledge. See Rodriguez , 993 F.2d at 1176 (inconsistent statement where defendant denied knowledge of a vehicle owned by his sister when defendant "was observed unlocking and entering" that vehicle). A rational jury could credit the government's presentation of documentary and other testimonial evidence as true, and infer that Lopez-Monzon's statements to Agent Santiago were inconsistent with Lopez-Monzon's understanding of what actually happened. In other words, a rational jury could infer that Lopez-Monzon attempted to mislead Agent Santiago—and such attempts to mislead certainly present circumstantial evidence of "consciousness of guilt." Rojas Alvarez , 451 F.3d at 334.

The government presented evidence from which...