UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/9/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 95-2046 v. (D.C. No. CR 94-503JP) JAIME OPORTO, (District of New Mexico) Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for
decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is a direct criminal appeal from a final judgment of
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. conviction. Appellant Jaime Oporto was found guilty by a jury of
possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and of carrying and
using a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Mr. Oporto drove into the United States Border Patrol
checkpoint on Highway 54 in Otero County, New Mexico, on August
11, 1994. He was the sole occupant of a blue pickup truck. Agent Stan Bell, on duty in the primary inspection area of the
checkpoint, detected the scent of burnt marijuana emanating from the truck.
Agent Bell requested permission from the Defendant to have a
dog inspect the truck, and he sent the Defendant to the secondary
inspection area of the checkpoint. Agent Bell asked Mr. Oporto who owned the truck, and he replied that it belonged to his aunt.
Agent Bell’s report, introduced as a defense exhibit, stated, “The truck returned to a Dora Hernandez, 1821 McRae, El Paso,
Texas . . . [W]hen I asked if Dora was indeed his aunt he did say
yes she was.” (Appellant’s App. at 2, Tr. at 39-40).
In the secondary inspection area, Agent Ray Sanchez
inspected the truck using a dog trained in the detection of narcotics. The canine indicated that drugs were hidden in the
gas tank area of the truck. Inspecting the gas tank, Agent Bell
2 saw that the gas tank was covered with mud. This contrasted with
the cleanliness of the remainder of the truck. He also observed
that the braces holding the gas tank in place did not appear to
have been factory-installed.
Agents removed the gas tank, finding two trap doors sealed
with bondo. 1 Inside the sealed compartments, the agents found
seventy pounds of marijuana with an estimated value of $57,000.
Agents also found and seized a cellular telephone in the cab of the truck.
Four days later, Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force
Officer Susan Sanchez searched the truck at an impoundment lot
after being assigned the case. Officer Sanchez unlocked the
truck and found a Colt .25 caliber automatic pistol under the
floor mat on the driver’s side of the truck. The gun, which was within reach of the driver, was loaded with four rounds.
Officer Sanchez also seized a bank statement in Mr. Oporto’s
name from the truck. She examined the gas tank and discovered
that the presence of the compartments for the marijuana
significantly reduced the capacity of the gas tank. She checked
the name and address on the registration for the truck--Dora
1 Bondo is a binding agent widely used to repair holes in car bodies.
3 Hernandez at 1821 McRae in El Paso, Texas. She could not locate
Ms. Hernandez, and she learned that the address did not exist.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Randy Guthrie test-fired
the handgun and found it to work properly. He testified that
narcotics smugglers use firearms to protect their drugs and
money.
The defense called no witnesses. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both the drug trafficking and firearm counts. The
district court sentenced Mr. Oporto to twenty-seven months on the drug charge, and to sixty months on the firearm charge, to be
served consecutively and followed by concurrent three-year terms
of supervised release.
Appellant’s sole issue is whether sufficient evidence was presented to support his convictions. Mr. Oporto’s argument that
the evidence was insufficient is without merit.
In determining whether a rational trier of fact could
reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, we review the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the government. United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 582 (10th Cir. 1994). We must
make a de novo review of the record to determine whether
sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s conviction. United
4 States v. Chavez-Palacios , 30 F.3d 1290, 1294 (10th Cir. 1994). “To overturn a jury’s conclusion of fact, we must find that no
reasonable juror could have reached the disputed verdict.”
United States v. Hoenscheidt , 7 F.3d 1528, 1530 (10th Cir. 1993).
In order to convict Mr. Oporto on the drug charge, the jury
had to find that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance
and that he intended to distribute that substance. Appellant
asserts that knowledge of the contraband cannot be inferred from mere control of a vehicle when the contraband is discovered in
hidden compartments within the vehicle.
We have previously found it “permissible to infer that the
driver of a vehicle has knowledge of the contraband within it.”
United States v. Levario , 877 F.2d 1483, 1485-86 (10th Cir.
1989). Rather than relying solely on control of the vehicle, Appellant urges us to adopt the analysis used by the Fifth
Circuit which looks for “additional factors indicating knowledge” to establish possession when contraband is stashed away in hidden
compartments within a vehicle. (Appellant’s Br. at 8 (citing to
United States v. Olivier-Becerril , 861 F.2d 424, 426-427 (5th Cir. 1988)); see also United States v. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d 907,
911 (5th Cir. 1995) (explaining the Fifth Circuit approach to
hidden compartment cases). The outcome of Defendant’s
conviction, however, would not change even if we look for
additional evidence indicating knowledge of possession.
5 Like the defendant in United States v. Nicholson , 17 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/9/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 95-2046 v. (D.C. No. CR 94-503JP) JAIME OPORTO, (District of New Mexico) Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for
decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is a direct criminal appeal from a final judgment of
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. conviction. Appellant Jaime Oporto was found guilty by a jury of
possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and of carrying and
using a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Mr. Oporto drove into the United States Border Patrol
checkpoint on Highway 54 in Otero County, New Mexico, on August
11, 1994. He was the sole occupant of a blue pickup truck. Agent Stan Bell, on duty in the primary inspection area of the
checkpoint, detected the scent of burnt marijuana emanating from the truck.
Agent Bell requested permission from the Defendant to have a
dog inspect the truck, and he sent the Defendant to the secondary
inspection area of the checkpoint. Agent Bell asked Mr. Oporto who owned the truck, and he replied that it belonged to his aunt.
Agent Bell’s report, introduced as a defense exhibit, stated, “The truck returned to a Dora Hernandez, 1821 McRae, El Paso,
Texas . . . [W]hen I asked if Dora was indeed his aunt he did say
yes she was.” (Appellant’s App. at 2, Tr. at 39-40).
In the secondary inspection area, Agent Ray Sanchez
inspected the truck using a dog trained in the detection of narcotics. The canine indicated that drugs were hidden in the
gas tank area of the truck. Inspecting the gas tank, Agent Bell
2 saw that the gas tank was covered with mud. This contrasted with
the cleanliness of the remainder of the truck. He also observed
that the braces holding the gas tank in place did not appear to
have been factory-installed.
Agents removed the gas tank, finding two trap doors sealed
with bondo. 1 Inside the sealed compartments, the agents found
seventy pounds of marijuana with an estimated value of $57,000.
Agents also found and seized a cellular telephone in the cab of the truck.
Four days later, Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force
Officer Susan Sanchez searched the truck at an impoundment lot
after being assigned the case. Officer Sanchez unlocked the
truck and found a Colt .25 caliber automatic pistol under the
floor mat on the driver’s side of the truck. The gun, which was within reach of the driver, was loaded with four rounds.
Officer Sanchez also seized a bank statement in Mr. Oporto’s
name from the truck. She examined the gas tank and discovered
that the presence of the compartments for the marijuana
significantly reduced the capacity of the gas tank. She checked
the name and address on the registration for the truck--Dora
1 Bondo is a binding agent widely used to repair holes in car bodies.
3 Hernandez at 1821 McRae in El Paso, Texas. She could not locate
Ms. Hernandez, and she learned that the address did not exist.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Randy Guthrie test-fired
the handgun and found it to work properly. He testified that
narcotics smugglers use firearms to protect their drugs and
money.
The defense called no witnesses. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both the drug trafficking and firearm counts. The
district court sentenced Mr. Oporto to twenty-seven months on the drug charge, and to sixty months on the firearm charge, to be
served consecutively and followed by concurrent three-year terms
of supervised release.
Appellant’s sole issue is whether sufficient evidence was presented to support his convictions. Mr. Oporto’s argument that
the evidence was insufficient is without merit.
In determining whether a rational trier of fact could
reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, we review the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the government. United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 582 (10th Cir. 1994). We must
make a de novo review of the record to determine whether
sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s conviction. United
4 States v. Chavez-Palacios , 30 F.3d 1290, 1294 (10th Cir. 1994). “To overturn a jury’s conclusion of fact, we must find that no
reasonable juror could have reached the disputed verdict.”
United States v. Hoenscheidt , 7 F.3d 1528, 1530 (10th Cir. 1993).
In order to convict Mr. Oporto on the drug charge, the jury
had to find that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance
and that he intended to distribute that substance. Appellant
asserts that knowledge of the contraband cannot be inferred from mere control of a vehicle when the contraband is discovered in
hidden compartments within the vehicle.
We have previously found it “permissible to infer that the
driver of a vehicle has knowledge of the contraband within it.”
United States v. Levario , 877 F.2d 1483, 1485-86 (10th Cir.
1989). Rather than relying solely on control of the vehicle, Appellant urges us to adopt the analysis used by the Fifth
Circuit which looks for “additional factors indicating knowledge” to establish possession when contraband is stashed away in hidden
compartments within a vehicle. (Appellant’s Br. at 8 (citing to
United States v. Olivier-Becerril , 861 F.2d 424, 426-427 (5th Cir. 1988)); see also United States v. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d 907,
911 (5th Cir. 1995) (explaining the Fifth Circuit approach to
hidden compartment cases). The outcome of Defendant’s
conviction, however, would not change even if we look for
additional evidence indicating knowledge of possession.
5 Like the defendant in United States v. Nicholson , 17 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1994), the totality of the evidence in this
case established that the Defendant knowingly possessed the
marijuana hidden in the truck. As with Nicholson, Mr. Oporto was
the only person in the truck, and it contained a personal item belonging to him (his bank statement). Furthermore, the odor of
burnt marijuana leads to the inference that the Defendant had
recently possessed and smoked marijuana. 2
The totality of the evidence, together within reasonable
inferences derived from that evidence, was sufficient to support a jury finding that Mr. Oporto knowingly possessed the seventy
pounds of marijuana secreted behind the gas tanks of his truck.
Sufficient evidence also existed to show that Defendant had
the intent to distribute the marijuana he possessed. Many circuit courts have recognized that an intent to distribute drugs
can be inferred from the possession of a large quantity of a
controlled substance. See United States v. Powell , 982 F.2d
1422, 1430 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2361 (1993); see also United States v. Love , 599 F.2d 107, 109 (5th
Cir.) (finding twenty-six pounds of marijuana was enough to infer
an intent to distribute), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 944 (1979). The
2 Although, the odor of burnt marijuana does not necessarily lead to an inference regarding the quantity of marijuana to be found.
6 truck driven by the Defendant contained seventy pounds of
marijuana, which the government valued at $57,000. It stretches
the bounds of the reasonable imagination that the Defendant
possessed seventy pounds of marijuana for his personal use.
Finally, Appellant challenges his firearm conviction on the
grounds that insufficient evidence was presented to establish the
underlying crime for the firearm offense. During the pendency of
this appeal the Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States , 1995 WL 712269 (Oct. 30, 1995). In Bailey, the Court unanimously held that the term “use” in § 924(c)(1) means that the defendant must have “actively employed the firearm during and in relation
to the predicate crime.” Id. While Appellant did not raise the
issue directly, we believe that the trial court should reconsider
the firearm conviction in light of Bailey because the firearm was
found four days after Defendant’s arrest under the floor mat of his vehicle.
We affirm Defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking and
remand Defendant’s conviction on the firearm charge for
reconsideration in light of Bailey. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
7 Circuit Judge