United States v. Tapia

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50101
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT TAPIA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio
USDC No. DR-03-CR-373-1-AML
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Tapia, Jr., appeals his jury-trial conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and importation of
marijuana. He first argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it admitted evidence of a prior drug trafficking
conviction.
The district court’s evidentiary ruling with respect to
Tapia’s 1995 drug trafficking conviction was in accord with FED.
R. EVID. 404(b), which provides that extrinsic evidence of other
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50101
-2-
crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
of a person to show action in conformity therewith, but is
admissible for other purposes, such as intent. See FED. R. EVID.
404(b); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.
1978) (en banc). Also, the district court diminished the
prejudicial effect of the FED. R. EVID. 404(b) evidence by giving
a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the proper use of
the evidence. United States v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th
Cir. 2000). The district court therefore did not abuse its
discretion with reference to the challenged evidentiary ruling.
United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1995).
Tapia avers next that the evidence was insufficient on all
counts of conviction because the Government failed to establish
that he had knowledge of the marijuana secreted in the spare tire
of the vehicle that he was driving. The argument fails.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, there was ample circumstantial evidence of guilty
knowledge. See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th
Cir. 2000). Tapia was the driver of a vehicle that contained a
spare tire in which 32 packages containing approximately 15
kilograms of marijuana were secreted. On the basis of Tapia’s
implausible explanation, lack of nervousness, and the large
amount of marijuana found, there was more than sufficient
evidence to support an inference by the jury that Tapia knew the
spare tire contained marijuana. See United States v. Ortega
No. 04-50101
-3-
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.