United States v. Hernandez-Castillo ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50945
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA ERENDIRA HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(00–CR-234)
October 24, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Hernandez-Castillo challenges her conviction of
possession with intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and
importation of marijuana into the United States in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(3).
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
I
On March 28, 2000, Maria Hernandez-Castillo, a resident of
Mexico, drove from Muzquiz, Mexico, to the international bridge in
Del Rio, Texas. The truck that she was driving had a toolbox
attached to its bed and belonged to one Javier Acosta Munoz, her
neighbor. At approximately 10:00 a.m. Hernandez-Castillo
approached lane one of the bridge’s primary inspection area. She
indicated to the primary inspector that she was going to Del Rio to
do some shopping. The primary inspector opened the toolbox in the
bed of the truck and noticed an abnormal “step” that ran the full
length of the toolbox. Hernandez-Castillo was then diverted to a
secondary inspection area, where a drug-sniffing dog alerted
inspectors to an area underneath the toolbox. Inspectors then
discovered 117.5 pounds of marijuana in a compartment inside the
toolbox.
Hernandez-Castillo was charged with possession with intent to
distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana and importation into the
United States of marijuana. She was convicted of both counts after
a jury trial and sentenced to concurrent 33-month terms of
imprisonment, concurrent three-year terms of supervised release,
and a $200 special assessment. She now appeals her conviction.
II
2
While Hernandez-Castillo moved for a judgment of acquittal at
the close of the Government’s case, she did not renew this motion
at the conclusion of the evidence. As a result, it is well-
established in this circuit that we conduct our sufficiency review
only to determine whether the conviction resulted in a “manifest
miscarriage of justice.”1 We consider all of the evidence in a
light most favorable to the conviction and we may find a manifest
miscarriage of justice “only if the record is devoid of evidence
pointing to guilt, or ... because the evidence on a key element of
the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.”2
Both of Hernandez-Castillo’s offenses require that the
government prove knowledge of the presence of the marijuana.3 “The
knowledge element in a possession case can rarely be established by
direct evidence. Knowledge can be inferred from control of the
vehicle in some cases; however, when the drugs are hidden, control
over the vehicle alone is not sufficient to prove knowledge.”4
1
United States v. Smith, 203 F.3d 884, 887 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
United States v. Barton, 257 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting
United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc)).
Hernandez-Castillo argues that our “manifest miscarriage of justice standard”
conflicts with the due process test for insufficiency claims that the Court
announced in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (holding in habeas
case that proper review for insufficiency claims was whether any rational trier
of fact could have found evidence that established the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt). We have repeatedly applied the more
deferential (to the verdict) manifest miscarriage of justice standard after
Jackson when, as here, the defendant fails to renew a motion for judgment of
acquittal at the close of all evidence. See, e.g., Barton, 257 F.3d at 439.
3
United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir. 1999).
4
United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993).
3
Consequentially, in this circuit additional circumstantial evidence
of control must be provided.5
After a careful review of the record, we cannot say that it is
devoid of evidence of guilt with respect to the essential element
of knowledge. Among other things, Hernandez-Castillo’s nervousness
during questioning, the quantity of drugs involved, and her
repeated trips to Del Rio and suspicious explanations for those
trips all provide circumstantial evidence of her knowledge of the
marijuana in the truck.6 Because the record is not devoid of
evidence of guilt, Hernandez-Castillo’s conviction must stand.
We AFFIRM.
5
Id.6
Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d at 466-67 (finding implausible story, quantity of
drugs, and defendant’s nervousness to provide sufficient circumstantial evidence
of knowledge to support conviction). Ramos-Garcia involved the less deferential
review of sufficiency under Jackson. Id. at 465.
4