United States v. Ernesto Verdera , 438 F. App'x 605 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10197
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00018-FMTG-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERNESTO PAGLICAWAN VERDERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2011 **
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: ALARCÓN, WARDLAW, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ernesto Paglicawan Verdera appeals his conviction under 31 U.S.C.
§ 5332(a)(1), for bulk cash smuggling out of the United States.1 The district court
denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because there was sufficient
evidence from which a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Verdera knew of § 5316(a)(1)(A)’s currency reporting requirement. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Reviewing de novo,
United States v. Neill, 166 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1999), we affirm.
The government introduced ample evidence from which the jury could have
inferred that Verdera knew of the currency reporting requirement. A juror could
have reasonably inferred that Verdera saw and read the sign explaining the
reporting requirement, which was posted in plain view on the Philippine Airlines
check-in counter. See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198, 1201-
02 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]ll reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the
government . . . .”). It would also have been reasonable to infer that Verdera saw
other similar signs that were typically posted throughout the airport. The
government presented evidence that Verdera attempted to transport $810,631 in
five pieces of luggage, despite the coverage provided by the airline’s insurance
1
Verdera’s notice of appeal provides that he also wishes to appeal his
sentence and the forfeiture order entered against him. However, he did not raise
any arguments specifically concerning these issues in his Rule 29 motion before
the district court or in his briefs to this court. Accordingly, the issues are deemed
waived. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010).
policy maxing out at $5,000 per parcel. Evidence also showed that wiring such a
large sum through a bank would have generated a suspicious activity report. The
jury could have reasonably inferred that Verdera took such a substantial risk in
order to conceal his transportation of the money. Finally, a juror could reasonably
infer, from Verdera’s five prior travels into and out of Guam and the fact that the
currency found in his luggage had been wrapped and concealed in false
compartments, that Verdera was an experienced international traveler, familiar
with the currency reporting requirement, but intending to evade it. See id. This
evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Verdera
knew of the currency reporting requirement when he failed to report the
transportation of more than $10,000 in U.S. currency out of the country in
violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5332(a)(1).
AFFIRMED.