United States v. Salas ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-51021
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RIGOBERTO SALAS; ANTONIO SANCHEZ-SALAS,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    --------------------
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. P-99-CR-160-1
    --------------------
    September 14, 2000
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rigoberto Salas (“Rigoberto”) and his nephew, Antonio
    Sanchez-Salas (“Antonio”), appeal their convictions for
    possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1).   They argue that the evidence was
    insufficient to support their convictions because there was no
    evidence of their guilty knowledge.
    The argument fails because the evidence, viewed in the light
    most favorable to the prosecution, demonstrates that the truck in
    which the marijuana was discovered was rented by Rigoberto, 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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 99-51021
    -2-
    the appellants exercised control over it, and that they told
    agents that they had personally loaded the truck; agent testimony
    further established that, when the blanket covering the boxes of
    marijuana was moved, the odor of marijuana was strong.   See
    Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1970); see also United
    States v. Garcia, 
    917 F.2d 1370
    , 1376-77 (5th Cir. 1990).    There
    was additional ample circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge:
    agent testimony established that the appellants appeared to be
    nervous when stopped and when the truck was inspected; one of
    them said, “Oh shit,” when they saw a drug-detection dog being
    led toward their truck; and the appellants gave inconsistent
    statements and implausible stories to agents following their
    arrest.   See United States v. Casilla, 
    20 F.3d 600
    , 606 (5th Cir.
    1994).
    Appellants next contend, for the first time on appeal, that
    the Government violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) by failing
    to disclose the incriminating statement that an agent overheard
    one of them make when the drug-detecting canine was brought out
    to search the vehicle.   The argument fails because the challenged
    phrase was a spontaneous, voluntary statement, not done in
    response to any interrogation by Border Patrol agents and thus
    did not fall within the ambit of Rule 16's mandatory disclosure
    requirements.   See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A); United States v.
    Navar, 
    611 F.2d 1156
    , 1158 (5th Cir. 1980).   The argument
    additionally fails because, as the appellants apparently concede,
    the statement was actually disclosed to them prior to trial.
    Rigoberto urges, also for the first time on appeal, that the
    No. 99-51021
    -3-
    statement was a violation of his Sixth-Amendment rights under
    Bruton v. United States, 
    391 U.S. 123
     (1968), or alternatively,
    was inadmissible as hearsay and unduly prejudicial.    Because the
    challenged statement did not directly allude to Rigoberto, there
    is no Bruton violation.   United States v. Restrepo, 
    994 F.2d 173
    ,
    186 (5th Cir. 1993).   The arguments under Fed. R. Evid. 803 and
    403 do not implicate any error, plain or otherwise.    See Fed.
    R. Evid. 803(2) and 403; see also United States v. Richards, 
    204 F.3d 177
    , 197 n.6 (5th Cir. 2000, petition for cert. filed, ___
    S. Ct. ___, 
    68 U.S.L.W. 3002
     (June 20, 2000, No. 99-2049); United
    States v. Lawrence, 
    699 F.2d 697
    , 704 (5th Cir. 1983); United
    States v. Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en
    banc).
    Rigoberto also challenges for the first time on appeal the
    district-court’s deliberate-ignorance instruction.    Antonio’s
    motion to incorporate this argument has been treated as a Fed. R.
    App. P. 28(i) letter, and this court considers the argument to
    have been adopted.   The appellants assert that there was no
    evidence of guilty knowledge and that the instruction thus
    enabled the jury to convict for mere negligence.   The argument is
    unpersuasive because sufficient evidence existed to justify the
    deliberate-indifference instruction.   See United States v. Hull,
    
    160 F.3d 265
    , 271 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    119 S. Ct. 1091
     and
    1791 (1999).
    AFFIRMED.