United States v. Larraga Solano

Case: 22-40534 Document: 00516698395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40534
FILED
April 3, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Victor Larraga Solano,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CR-1134-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Juan Victor Larraga Solano was convicted, following a jury trial, of one
count of conspiracy to import 50 grams or more methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(H), and one count
of importation of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of
_____________________
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40534 Document: 00516698395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-40534
§§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(H) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, he
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. For the
reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.
Because Larraga Solano moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close
of the Government’s case but did not renew his Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 29 motion at the close of all of the evidence, this court applies
plain error review. See United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 285 (5th Cir.
2022); United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678, 686 (5th Cir. 2017). Thus, he must
show that “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or that the
evidence is so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” Cabello, 33 F.4th at
288 (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). Relief is
appropriate under this standard only if the Government’s evidence is
“obviously insufficient and the defendant shows a manifest miscarriage of
justice.” United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d 626, 631 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
In order to prove conspiracy to import methamphetamine, the
Government was required to establish that: (1) a defendant agreed to import
drugs and (2) knowingly and voluntarily participated in the agreement.
United States v. Zamora-Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 832 (5th Cir. 2017). To prove
importation of methamphetamine, the Government had to establish that the
defendant: (1) played a role in bringing a controlled substance into the United
States from outside of the country; (2) knew the substance was controlled;
and (3) knew the substance would enter the United States. Id.Larraga Solano does not dispute the existence of a conspiracy or that
the importation of methamphetamine occurred; instead, he challenges only
the mens rea element, arguing that the Government did not establish proof
that he had knowledge of the methamphetamine hidden in items in the trunk
of his vehicle. Any element of conspiracy to import drugs may be inferred
2
Case: 22-40534 Document: 00516698395 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-40534
from circumstantial evidence. Id. The necessary knowledge and intent to
prove importation of a controlled substance can also be proven by
circumstantial evidence. United States v. Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d 202, 206
(5th Cir. 2017). Exercise of control over a vehicle where an illegal substance
is concealed creates an inference of knowledge of its presence, but where
drugs are concealed in a hidden compartment, “circumstantial evidence that
is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge” is also required.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A review of the record reveals that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence presented at trial for a reasonable jury to infer Larraga Solano’s
knowledge of the concealed methamphetamine. See Cabello, 33 F.4th at 285.
Border agents testified that Larraga Solano appeared nervous. He gave an
implausible story, stating that he asked a colleague to check the car he was
driving with a canine in advance but then failed to inspect any of the actual
items placed in the trunk before leaving for the United States. It was
implausible that he was traveling 750 miles across an international border to
transport food items, including meat in ice chests and other items available
in the United States, and to spend 40 minutes in two clothing stores. See
Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206-08. There were also inconsistencies in his
stories, including stops he was making during his trip and whether his car was
rented or loaned. See id. at 206-07.
Moreover, a jury may infer guilty knowledge when the illicit cargo is
valuable enough that it is not rational to believe that it would be entrusted to
an unknowing party. See United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157
(5th Cir. 1983); see also Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 208 (stating that the value
of the drug being transported is an example of circumstantial evidence that
may be probative of knowledge). Here, 44.56 kilograms of
methamphetamine valued between $200,000 and $1.12 million were
concealed within items in the trunk of the vehicle Larraga Solano was driving.
3
Case: 22-40534 Document: 00516698395 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-40534
Along with his demeanor during the investigation and the implausibility of
and inconsistencies in his story, this quantity of concealed drugs provided
sufficient evidence for the jury to find Larraga Solano guilty of conspiracy to
import methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine. See Lopez-
Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206-08. Accordingly, Larraga Solano has not shown that
the record is devoid of evidence supporting his guilt or that the result
constitutes a miscarriage of justice. See Cabello, 33 F.4th at 288; Suarez,
879 F.3d at 631.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
4