United States v. Garcia Sanchez

Case: 22-50156 Document: 00516775146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50156
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 5, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Oscar Santiago Garcia Sanchez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-122-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Oscar Santiago Garcia Sanchez was convicted by a jury for possession
with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The
district court sentenced Garcia Sanchez to 151 months in prison to be
followed by five years of supervised release.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50156 Document: 00516775146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 22-50156
On appeal, Garcia Sanchez argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment during the warrantless border search. We review a district
court’s findings on a motion to suppress for clear error, and the court’s
ultimate conclusions on whether the Fourth Amendment was violated de
novo. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2010). Garcia
Sanchez argues that drilling into the keyholders concealing the
methamphetamine violated the Constitution because the Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the
keyholders contained contraband prior to the intrusive and destructive
search. Contrary to Garcia Sanchez’s argument, the CBP officers’ testimony
articulated clear and specific reasons why the officers suspected that the
keyholders may have contained contraband. Accordingly, Garcia Sanchez
has not shown that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 440.
Garcia Sanchez also argues that the evidence was insufficient to allow
the jury to find that he knew that the keyholders contained narcotics. This
claim is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d 626, 630 (5th
Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Control over a vehicle that contains
contraband can support an inference of knowledge of the contraband. United
States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990). When contraband
is hidden, however, “additional circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in
nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge” is required. United States v. Mudd,
685 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). In addition to Garcia Sanchez’s sole control of the vehicle, there
was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to infer his
knowledge of the methamphetamine. See United States v. Vargas-Ocampo,
747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes,
722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983).
2
Case: 22-50156 Document: 00516775146 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 22-50156
Finally, Garcia Sanchez argues that he is entitled to a new trial because
the prosecutor made an inaccurate statement during the rebuttal portion of
his closing argument. Plain error review applies because Garcia Sanchez did
not object to the prosecutor’s remarks. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 515 (5th Cir. 2005). To succeed on plain error review, Garcia Sanchez
must show a clear or obvious error, “i.e., the prosecutor’s remarks were
improper,” that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Aguilar, 645
F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if the prosecutor’s statement regarding
the number of people who had weighed the methamphetamine was incorrect,
Garcia Sanchez does not dispute that the keyholders contained 3.4 kilograms
of methamphetamine. Without a significant dispute as to the accuracy of the
weight of the methamphetamine, the statement had no significant prejudicial
effect. See United States v. Smith, 814 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2016).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3