United States v. Prieto-Molinar

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50159
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAIME PRIETO-MOLINAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 98-CR-447-2-H
--------------------
September 17, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaime Prieto-Molinar appeals from his conviction by jury
verdict for one count each of conspiracy to possess and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Prieto-Molinar
contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction. Because Prieto-Molinar moved for a judgment of
acquittal at the close of the Government’s evidence and did not
present any evidence, we view all of the evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-50159
-2-
Government and affirm the judgment only if a rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540,
543 (5th Cir. 1998). The Government was required to prove three
elements in order to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance: (1) an
agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics
laws, (2) that each alleged conspirator knew of the conspiracy
and intended to join it, and (3) that each alleged conspirator
did participate voluntarily in the conspiracy. United States v.
Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 1994). “The jury may infer
any element of this offense from circumstantial evidence."
United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1476 (5th Cir. 1989).
Thus, “[k]nowledge may be inferred from surrounding
circumstances." Lechuga, 888 F.2d at 1476-77 (citation and
quotation marks omitted). A conviction for the offense of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute requires proof
that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed marijuana (3) with
intent to distribute it. United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575,
577 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Government adduced evidence at trial showing that a car
loaded with 47 pounds of marijuana in a hidden compartment
crossed into the United States via the Paso del Norte port of
entry and was left at a restaurant in El Paso, Texas, for pick
up. The evidence also showed that Prieto-Molinar retrieved the
car from that point and subsequently provided U.S. Customs
authorities with implausible and inconsistent information
No. 99-50159
-3-
concerning his connection to the loaded car. A rational jury
could infer from the evidence that Prieto-Molinar knowingly
conspired to possess and possessed with intent to distribute the
marijuana secreted in the car.
AFFIRMED.