United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez

Decision Date09 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–40684.,10–40684.
Citation662 F.3d 369
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Jaime MORENO–GONZALEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

662 F.3d 369

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Jaime MORENO–GONZALEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 10–40684.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2011.Revised Nov. 9, 2011.


[662 F.3d 371]

Eileen K. Wilson (argued), Renata Ann Gowie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Juan Luis Guerra, Jr. (argued), Millie Leone Thompson (argued), Guerra & Farah, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before WIENER, CLEMENT and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

Jaime Moreno–Gonzalez appeals his jury conviction for possession with the intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana based on insufficient evidence. Because there was sufficient evidence with which a jury could have convicted Moreno–Gonzalez, we AFFIRM his conviction.

FACTS

Moreno–Gonzalez drove a tractor-trailer from Mexico and entered the United States where he was stopped at a checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas. As Moreno–Gonzalez approached the checkpoint, he “immediately” and “without [the border patrol agent] asking” told the agent that he was a U.S. citizen. Afterwards, Moreno–Gonzalez's brother, Cirilo Moreno–Gonzalez (“Cirilo”), who was lying down in the sleeper compartment of the tractor (i.e., the cabin area of the truck), “snuck his head out from the curtain” and handed the agent his permanent resident alien card. At some point, the agent asked Moreno–Gonzalez where he was going, and he responded that he was hauling produce to North Carolina.

While Moreno–Gonzalez was stopped at the checkpoint, a drug-detection dog alerted another border patrol agent to the presence of drugs in Moreno–Gonzalez's tractor-trailer. Moreno–Gonzalez consented to the agents' search of the trailer, and the vehicle was sent to a secondary inspection area. There, an X-ray of the truck revealed “anomalies” in the cargo, and the drug-detection dog again alerted to the truck. Moreno–Gonzalez consented to open the back of the trailer. Agents broke the seal of the trailer and discovered 112 bundles of marijuana inside boxes in the sealed compartment. The boxes only occupied one-eighth of the space in the trailer, and the trailer did not contain any other cargo. The total weight of the marijuana was 1,329.5 pounds (585.1 kilograms).

The agents also found $4,420 in cash on Moreno–Gonzalez's person—$900 in his wallet and two small bundles of cash, amounting to $3,520, wrapped with a rubber band in his pocket. Moreno–Gonzalez explained that one of the bundles of cash was for fuel. Additionally, the agents found two bills of lading in the cab of Moreno–Gonzalez's truck: one dated July 23, 2009 and one dated September 20, 2009. The first documented a shipment from Turner Enterprises, a business located at an address in McAllen, Texas, to Elite Coverall, a business located at an address in Chicago, Illinois. Both businesses and addresses were later found not to exist. The second bill of lading—the

[662 F.3d 372]

one for Moreno–Gonzalez's delivery—also stated that the shipment was coming from Turner Enterprises but that it was going to “QVC” in “Rocky Mount, North Carolina,” without specifying a ship-to address. Both bills of lading reflected the same bill of lading numbers and the same trailer numbers, although the seal numbers and the carrier names differed. Moreno–Gonzalez told the agents that the bills of lading were in the truck when he first entered it, but he was “familiar with them.”

Moreno–Gonzalez was arrested at the checkpoint and charged in an indictment with: (1) “knowingly and intentionally conspir[ing] ... to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute ... more than one thousand (1,000) kilograms of marihuana, that is, approximately one thousand seven hundred ninety-six (1,796) kilograms of marihuana, a Schedule 1 controlled substance” and (2) “knowingly and intentionally possess[ing] with intent to distribute ... more than one hundred (100) kilograms of marihuana, that is, approximately five hundred eighty five and one-tenth (585.1) kilograms of marihuana, a Schedule I controlled substance.” On March 25, 2010, a jury found Moreno–Gonzalez not guilty of the conspiracy charge but guilty of the possession charge. He now appeals his conviction for sufficiency of the evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “highly deferential to the verdict.” United States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir.2002). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir.2003). “The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, accepting all credibility choices and reasonable inferences made by the trier of fact which tend to support the verdict.” United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1030 (5th Cir.1997). We must ensure that our inquiry is “limited to whether the jury's verdict was reasonable, not whether we believe it to be correct.” United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 576 (5th Cir.2001). Finally, “[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.” United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 382 (5th Cir.1999), and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the jury's verdict. United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 990 (5th Cir.1990).

A large part of the defendant's argument on appeal revolves around the proper inferences and weight the jury is permitted to give to circumstantial evidence. With that in mind, it is important to highlight that our case law makes clear that the standard of review for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is the same as it normally would be for direct evidence. See Lage, 183 F.3d at 382 (“This standard of review is the same regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.”); see also United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 341 (5th Cir.1993).

DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Although...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • United States v. Owens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 6 Octubre 2016
    ...to the verdict." See United States v. Herrera, 466 F. App'x 409, 414 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted))). The Court c......
  • United States v. Stanford
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 18 Mayo 2016
    ...in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d 403, 413 (5th Cir.2015) (quoting United States v. Moreno–Gonzalez, 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir.2011) ). The critical question “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, ......
  • United States v. Velasquez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 30 Enero 2018
    ...crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Umawa Oke Imo , 739 F.3d 226, 235 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez , 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2011) ). Courts are to "accept all credibility choices and reasonable inferences made by the trier of fact which tend ......
  • United States v. Herrera
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 26 Abril 2012
    ...States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256 (5th Cir. 2006). This review is "highly deferential to the verdict." United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir. 2002)). "It is not necessary that the evidenceexclude ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT