United States v. Luis Cardenas , 810 F.3d 373 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-50125   Document: 00513347691     Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 15-50125                             FILED
    Summary Calendar                    January 19, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    LUIS CARDENAS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Luis Cardenas was convicted by a jury of one count of fraudulently
    receiving and facilitating the transportation, concealment, and sale of
    ammunition prior to exportation and one count of attempted exportation of
    ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). The district court sentenced
    Cardenas to two concurrent terms of 72 months of imprisonment and three
    years of supervised release.
    On appeal, Cardenas argues that the district court should have
    instructed the jury that, to find him guilty of violations of § 554(a) (smuggling
    from the United States), it must find that he violated 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c)
    (control of arms exports and imports), with the specific intent to violate the
    Case: 15-50125     Document: 00513347691      Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    No. 15-50125
    law. Because Cardenas did not make this argument in the district court, we
    review it only for plain error. See United States v. Betancourt, 
    586 F.3d 303
    ,
    305-06 (5th Cir. 2009).
    In United States v. Bernardino, 444 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2011), we
    determined that, to establish an offense under § 554(a), the Government is
    required to prove only that the defendant knew he was dealing with
    ammunition that was intended for export and that the exportation was illegal.
    We specifically rejected the argument that the jury charge should have
    included an instruction requiring the Government to prove both that the
    defendant knew that the ammunition was an item for which an export license
    was required and intended to export the weapons without the license.
    Bernardino, 444 F. App’x at 74. We followed Bernardino in the appeal by
    Cardenas’s brother and codefendant, see United States v. Cardenas, ___ F.
    App’x ___, No. 14-50906, 
    2015 WL 5451335
    , 1 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2015), and in
    United States v. Reyes, 559 F. App’x 274 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Bernardino,
    Reyes, and Cardenas are unpublished and non-controlling precedent, they are
    persuasive. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4; Ballard v. Burton, 
    444 F.3d 391
    , 401 & n.7
    (5th Cir. 2006). We hold that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise,
    in instructing the jury.
    Cardenas also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
    convictions even if the court instructed the jury properly as to the elements of
    the offense. “[R]eviewing courts must affirm a conviction if, after viewing the
    evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
    prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
    of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 
    747 F.3d 299
    , 301 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 170
    (2014).
    2
    Case: 15-50125    Document: 00513347691     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    No. 15-50125
    Cardenas concedes that he stated that he believed that the ammunition
    was destined for Mexico. He also concedes that the evidence would allow a
    finding that he suspected that the exportation of ammunition was illegal or
    that he was acting in reckless disregard of whether his actions were illegal but
    asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he actually knew that
    the exportation of ammunition was illegal.       This argument ignores that
    Cardenas stated to a law enforcement official that he knew exporting
    ammunition to Mexico was illegal. The fact that Cardenas also stated that he
    did not think he would get in trouble because he only drove the ammunition to
    San Antonio and that he thought there was little chance that much of the
    ammunition would make it to Mexico does not negate or undercut his
    statement regarding his knowledge of the illegality of exporting ammunition
    to Mexico. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt
    that Cardenas knew that the exportation of ammunition to Mexico was
    contrary to the laws of the United States. The judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-50125

Citation Numbers: 810 F.3d 373

Filed Date: 1/19/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023