United States v. Juarez Salcido ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50725 Document: 00516837734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50725
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Victor Alonso Juarez Salcido,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-1051-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Victor Alonso Juarez Salcido appeals his
conviction for conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with
intent to distribute, and importation of five kilograms or more of cocaine. He
insists that the district court abused its discretion by giving a “deliberate
ignorance” instruction to the jury.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50725 Document: 00516837734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
No. 22-50725
We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 697 (5th Cir. 2012). A deliberate indifference
instruction “is appropriate only when a defendant claims a lack of guilty
knowledge and the proof at trial supports an inference of deliberate
[ignorance].” United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 341 (5th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That instruction should be
used when the evidence at trial raises two inferences: “(1) the defendant was
subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of the illegal conduct;
and (2) the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning of the illegal
conduct.” Brooks, 681 F.3d at 701 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Juarez Salcido concedes that the Government met the first inference.
The record indicates that Juarez Salcedo was aware that his activities were
likely illegal. For example, he expressed concern as to whether he was
committing a crime by bringing money over the border, he inspected the
vehicle out of suspicion, he made untruthful statements to the Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers and the Homeland Security Investigations
(HSI) agent, and he displayed nervous behavior when he encountered the
CBP officers. See Brooks, 681 F.3d at 701-02; United States v. Nguyen, 493
F.3d 613, 619-20 (5th Cir. 2007).
Juarez Salcido nevertheless contends that he did not engage in a
“purposeful contrivance to avoid learning of the illegal conduct.” Brooks,
681 F.3d at 701. However, the record militates against him. For example, he
did not question the source of the money he received or the instructions to
leave the car unattended in a parking lot for an unknown individual to place
money in the car. When viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government, the evidence gives rise to an inference that Juarez Salcido
purposefully avoided learning about the illegal purpose of his trip. See United
States v. Farfan-Carreon, 935 F.2d 678, 679, 681 (5th Cir. 1991); Nguyen, 493
2
Case: 22-50725 Document: 00516837734 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
No. 22-50725
F.3d at 621-22. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the
district court. See Brooks, 681 F.3d at 697.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3