United States v. Lozano-Leal

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40626
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE LUIZ LOZANO-LEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CRr-76-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 27, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Luiz Lozano-Leal (“Lozano”) appeals his jury conviction
for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
Lozano contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
the knowledge element of the offense, in that the marijuana was
concealed in a hidden compartment in the gas tank of the Chevrolet
Suburban he was driving. The evidence was not insufficient to
support Lozano’s conviction for possession. See United States v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40626
-2-
Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). Customs inspector
Conrada Serna testified that the gas gauge of the vehicle, which
had a fuel capacity of 42 gallons, was registering a little less
than full even though it held only three to four gallons of gas.
Inspector Serna also testified that the fuel tank would be emptying
at a faster rate. Because Lozano purported to be the owner of the
vehicle, the jury could have concluded that Lozano would have
noticed this obvious and remarkable change in the fuel consumption
of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the jury could have inferred that he
was aware of the compartment. Also, Lozano’s statement to
immigration inspector Jorge Ruiz that he had owned the vehicle
since October was inconsistent with the information contained on
the vehicle registration. The jury could have concluded guilty
knowledge from this false statement. See United States v. Thomas,
120 F.3d 564, 570 (5th Cir. 1997). Although Lozano attempted to
explain the discrepancy by telling Inspector Lonnie Colson that he
had registered the vehicle under a different name the prior month,
the jury could have concluded that his story, without more, was
implausible. See Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 544. Lastly, the jury
could have inferred guilt from Lozano’s increasing nervousness as
the interview and inspection continued. See United States v.
Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 607 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.