eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-03

United States v. Daniel Compton ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 19-40345      Document: 00515350908         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/19/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-40345                          March 19, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIEL JAMES COMPTON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:18-CR-1118-1
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Daniel James Compton was convicted following a jury trial of one count
of transportation of an undocumented alien. He was sentenced to a prison term
of 37 months. He appeals his conviction.
Compton argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to
support his transportation conviction. Insufficiency of the evidence claims are
reviewed de novo, and this court gives substantial deference to the jury verdict.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 19-40345      Document: 00515350908   Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/19/2020
No. 19-40345
United States v. Chon,
    713 F.3d 812
    , 818 (5th Cir. 2013). Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Government, this court asks only whether a
rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt.
    Id. Compton argues 
    that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had
knowledge of the undocumented alien’s presence in his vehicle’s trunk, or he
recklessly disregarded her presence.       However, circumstantial evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, supports a rational
inference that Compton knew that he was transporting an undocumented
alien. See United States v. Nolasco-Rosas,
    286 F.3d 762
    , 765 (5th Cir. 2002).
Compton had sole control over the vehicle in which the alien was found, he
displayed evasive and nervous behavior at the checkpoint, he volunteered
suspicious information without being asked, and he gave implausible
explanations. See United States v. Richardson,
    848 F.2d 509
    , 512-14 (5th Cir.
1988); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Farias,
    294 F.3d 657
    , 660 (5th Cir.
2002). Additionally, the alien paid thousands of dollars to be smuggled into
the United States, a portion of which was due upon successful arrival, and it
is not unreasonable to infer that her transport would not be entrusted to an
unknowing party. See Del Aguila-Reyes,
    722 F.2d 155
    , 157 (5th Cir. 1983).
Thus, from this evidence, a rational jury could have found the knowledge
element of the transportation offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.            See
    Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d at 765
    .       The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2