United States v. Kufuo Wilson , 650 F. App'x 538 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MAY 27 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      No. 14-10568
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01783-CKJ-
    BGM-1
    v.
    KUFUO K. WILSON,                               MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted March 17, 2016*
    San Francisco, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    In September 2013, Kufuo Wilson entered an immigration checkpoint on
    Arizona State Route 80 north of Tombstone. At the checkpoint, his van passed by
    a police dog trained to detect concealed people and drugs. After the dog alerted to
    the van, a search revealed 115 kilograms of marijuana.            Wilson appeals his
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
    as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    conviction for possession with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more of
    marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). We affirm.
    1.     Wilson moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing that use of a drug-
    sniffing dog transformed the checkpoint from a lawful immigration checkpoint into
    an unlawful drug interdiction. See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 
    531 U.S. 32
    , 44
    (2000). But, a lawful immigration checkpoint is not made unlawful by the addition
    of a secondary purpose of drug interdiction. United States v. Soto-Camacho, 
    58 F.3d 408
    , 411–12 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, that the dog was trained to detect both
    drugs and concealed people does not raise an inference of illegality. Because
    Wilson’s request for an evidentiary hearing was based on mere conjecture that the
    government makes more drug than immigration arrests at the Tombstone
    checkpoint, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. See United
    States v. Wilson, 
    7 F.3d 828
    , 833 (9th Cir. 1993).
    2.     After Wilson’s arrest, the government sent notice to the van’s registered
    owner and forfeited the van, which was sold for scrap. Wilson argues that depriving
    him of the opportunity to inspect the van violated the Due Process Clause. But, he
    does not claim that the van contained exculpatory evidence, only that an inspection
    might have been useful. In the absence of any evidence of bad faith, Wilson’s claim
    fails. See Illinois v. Fisher, 
    540 U.S. 544
    , 547–48 (2004).
    2
    3.    Wilson argues that the government failed to prove that he knew
    marijuana was in the van or that he intended to distribute it. However, a jury could
    reasonably infer Wilson’s knowledge and intent to distribute from the large quantity
    of marijuana and his admission that the van smelled like marijuana. See United
    States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 
    351 F.3d 404
    , 407 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Davila-
    Escovedo, 
    36 F.3d 840
    , 843 (9th Cir. 1994).
    AFFIRMED.
    3