United States v. Rodriguez-Matamoros

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40018
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO RODRIGUEZ-MATAMOROS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-99-CR-447-1)
December 21, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sergio Rodriguez-Matamoros appeals his conviction for
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). He contends that the evidence at trial
was insufficient to show that he knew the vehicle he was driving
contained marijuana.
Because Rodriguez made a motion for judgment of acquittal at
the close of the Government’s case and at the close of all of the
evidence, the standard of review in assessing his sufficiency
challenge is “whether, considering all the evidence in the light
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could
have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt”. United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.
2000).
Although knowledge can be inferred from control of the vehicle
in some cases, when the drugs are secreted in hidden compartments,
as in this case, control over the vehicle alone is insufficient to
prove knowledge. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544
(5th Cir. 1998). There must also be “circumstantial evidence that
is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge”. Id.
(citation omitted).
This court has identified the following types of behavior as
circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge: (1) nervousness; (2)
absence of nervousness, i.e., a cool and calm demeanor; (3) refusal
or reluctance to answer questions; (4) lack of surprise when
contraband is discovered; (5) inconsistent statements; (6)
implausible explanations; (7) possession of large amounts of cash;
and (8) obvious or remarkable alterations to the vehicle. Id.
(citations omitted). The evidence at trial sufficiently
established the listed behaviors, and, thus, Rodriguez’s guilty
knowledge.
AFFIRMED
2