United States v. Belloc , 142 F. App'x 221 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 26, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51401
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LUIS BELLOC,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-143-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Luis Belloc appeals his jury-trial convictions on two
counts of possessing with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or
more, but less than 100 kilograms, of marijuana. The offenses
occurred on April 16, 2004, and on May 6, 2004. The former
offense involved marijuana bundles hidden in a flatbed trailer;
the latter involved marijuana bundles secreted in compartments in
a pickup truck driven by Belloc.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 04-51401
-2-
Belloc argues that the evidence was insufficient to show
that he knowingly possessed marijuana on either occasion. In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court considers
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing
all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict. United
States v. Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
After reviewing the record, we have determined that there
was sufficient evidence to support Belloc’s convictions. Border
Patrol agents identified Belloc as one of two persons associated
with the trailer used in the April 16, 2004, offense. Belloc’s
explanation that he was transporting “antiques” in a heavy
trailer along a rough, unpaved portion of Texas Farm Road 2810
(“FM 2810”), which bypasses a fixed checkpoint on a paved
highway, was implausible. Belloc’s story provides additional
circumstantial evidence of his knowledge of the marijuana
concealed in the trailer. See United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d
459, 464 (5th Cir. 1999).
As to the May 6, 2004, offense, Belloc was identified as the
driver of the truck containing secreted marijuana bundles.
Belloc’s explanation that he picked up the truck at an
establishment in Candelaria, Texas, and was innocently driving
the vehicle along FM 2810 as a favor for a man he had met in a
bar in Mexico was implausible, and Belloc’s nervousness upon
being stopped by Border Patrol agents is additional evidence that
he had knowledge of the contraband concealed in the truck. See
No. 04-51401
-3-
id. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the
verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support Balloc’s
convictions. See Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543.
Belloc also argues that the Government failed to establish
venue for either offense. Venue need only be shown by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Carreon-Palacio,
267 F.3d 381, 390 (5th Cir. 2001). “Absence of direct proof of
venue will not defeat conviction where inferences of venue may
properly be drawn from circumstantial evidence.” Weaver v.
United States, 298 F.2d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 1962). Here, the
testimony of Border Patrol agents established that the offenses
occurred on FM 2810, and maps showed that FM 2810 was within the
jurisdiction of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(6).
We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
establish venue.
AFFIRMED.