United States v. Dorantes-Pozos , 228 F. App'x 451 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50983
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ALFONSO DORANTES-POZOS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-41-2
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfonso Dorantes-Pozos (Dorantes) appeals his conviction for
aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute more
than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Dorantes
argues first that the district court erroneously admitted
evidence of an incriminating statement given in an impermissible
second interrogation after he had invoked his right to remain
silent. Dorantes was advised of his Miranda** rights upon his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
**
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
No. 06-50983
-2-
arrest and was not interrogated again for five to seven hours, at
which point he was re-advised of his rights before he gave his
statement. There is no indication that police repeatedly
interrogated him or ignored his invocation of his rights or
otherwise coerced him in between interrogations, and we conclude
that Dorantes’s right to cut off questioning was scrupulously
honored. See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975); see
also Kelly v. Lynaugh, 862 F.2d 1126, 1130-31 (5th Cir. 1988).
Dorantes further argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction for aiding and abetting because there
was no evidence that he shared in the criminal intent to possess
marijuana or that he sought to make the venture successful. A
jury could conclude from the evidence that Dorantes stole a
vehicle to assist his codefendant in an illegal venture that
required them to meet several illegal aliens near the border.
Dorantes was to be paid $500 for his efforts. Dorantes drove
part of the way and then spoke with the aliens by cell phone just
before the meeting. The aliens loaded the marijuana into the
vehicle in plain view. The codefendant gave a statement to
police that he had been instructed to drive to a hotel and wait
with the marijuana. When the aliens and the marijuana were
loaded into the vehicle, Dorantes and the codefendant drove eight
or nine miles before they were stopped by the Border Patrol.
When viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the
Government, the evidence supports the conviction. See Jackson v.
No. 06-50983
-3-
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Jaramillo,
42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995).
Finally, Dorantes argues that the district court erroneously
instructed the jury on flight. The evidence showed that when the
Border Patrol stopped the vehicle, Dorantes and several occupants
ran from the car. It is inferrable from the sequence of events
that Dorantes fled because of guilt related to the marijuana and
because he felt guilt in having aided and abetted the possession
of marijuana. The district court’s instruction was not
erroneous. See United States v. Martinez, 190 F.3d 673, 678 (5th
Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.