ok may it please the court my name is kim keller and i'm here today on behalf of appellant in this case the appellant has no priors no juvenile background of criminal history no adult background of criminal history and has been sentenced to two hundred ninety months in prison in this secret compartment case the element that has been challenged on appeal is guilty knowledge whether the pilot had knowledge of those drugs in that defective gas tank this court has said in the jury was instructed in this case that ownership alone is not enough ownership alone is insufficient and the governing standard here today is the vargas  that's the case that this court handed down on bach in twenty fourteen where this court abandoned the poison rule in circumstantial evidence cases but i'd like to point out one element of what this court quoted in that case and that said that was where this court said rule we do not render the jackson standard toothless courts remain empowered to consider consider whether the inferences drawn by the jury were rational as opposed to being speculative and insupportable said what about your own your clients short of shaky or unbelievable or inconsistent stories about the ownership of the truck and all of the other facts that the government relied on well your honor that's the reason i was there that i can liken the mysterious person named reuben that he has no idea what the last name is or where he lives or anything about him well let's go through  reuben what the appellate gave to the law enforcement officers when he was asked about the the truck that he readily admitted owning and let's remember the defendant did not when he learned he was in mexico when the truck w so did the defendant take off back to guatemala his home country when he learned while he was safely in mexico that the truck was seized or did he pack up his luggage head to the customs station come up to the law enforcement officer and say that's my truck i need to pick it up but i didn't because he had for some pretty valuable contraband in that truck but if the drugs had been seized all he's doing at that point is admitting guilt if he has guilty knowledge and as to reuben the partner that he bought the truck with what mr lopez months on told law enforcement officers was that they bought the truck to other that the price of the truck was twelve thousand five hundred dollars they put money into gether and that all he knew about rubin was that he owned a car dealership in guatemala his story never changed and your honor judgment you asked about inconsistent statements that mr lopez months on what i submit to this court that mr lo months on had no inconsistent statements when the court when this court handed down the or or take a look has factors that this court is supposed to consider in these guilty knowledge cases there's a lot of factors one of them being that oh he just thought the previous owner left their gas tank along eight hundred pounds of fuel i mean that's pretty valuable commodity i agree your honor and before i answer your question i just want to point out procedurally a factor of inconsistent statements when the court looks at the case law looking at what is an inconsistent statement that's when the defendant says gives the government two different stories first he says i was traveling here and then he changes his story and says no no i was traveling here mr low post once on never changed his story none of his statements are inconsistent now we do have the government relying on the strings of evidence yes we do have the government relying on  extrinsic evidence to try to disprove mr lowe called one and only statement that's different than saying he was saying two different things to the government which is the factor that i don't and united states versus rodriguez nine hundred ninety three this court said that it described inconsistent statements as including statements that are completely inconsistent with evidence should use to trial in the course to title two of the truck sales documents would be an example of that not the only example yes your honor and i think maybe what you're saying too is the implausible explanation how does he explain these documents well i submit that mr locke was months on explain the documents very very consistently and very rationally what he said was these documents show my ownership of this truck they are from one a truck sales the defendant are the government put on the stand a an american business owner the corporate secretary of a one auto truck sales and what the government did not contradict or show any evidence to disprove was the cashier's checks what mr months on had in his possession was two invoices from one eight auto truck sales into cash airships receipts showing the the money going to one a auto truck sales that's completely consistent with his story the government elected to bring into the courtroom a corporate secretary of a one auto truck sales and they said this is not our invoice we never sold him a truck that's consistent with what mr lopez months on documents show he didn't buy a truck from a one auto truck sales he didn't pay money to a one auto truck sales and so there's a variation in the invoices in the wire transfers but no showing whatsoever by the government that those wire transfers were and were fraudulent and that the money wasn't  transferred to an american company the dearest dearest bank was the one that issued the cashier ships no evidence saying here spank never issued these cashier's checks that these are fraudulent documents from the bank and so when we're saying and kind of glossing over the inconsistent statement factor the court should recognize that the government is really attempting to expand expand this factor because from the very beginning to the very end mr lopez months on never made an inconsistent statement he told the story he said this is my truck i was the one that was involved in driving it across we had a trip judge clement you asked the question about whether they were driving who was in front and who was in back well there was a statement made by mr lopez months on that he was i can't remember who was supposed to be first or second but it didn't seem to to corroborate the documents the gas receipts and and the passport stamp but i submit to your honor that as these gentlemen were driving together the simple fact that one was in front of the other doesn't disprove mr low post months on statement that we were traveling companions you could have very easily had two gentlemen driving together and one was a little bit ahead of the other one and when they stopped the bought he said i bought it from this company one day auto truck sales and here are the invoices one day auto truck sales the government brought into the courtroom the corporate secretary of a one auto truck sales who said we don't sell truck haulers we didn't sell this truck but again we're talking about apples one a auto truck sells and oranges a one auto truck sales there was questions is this a fraudulent invoice is he did did he make up this invoice did someone make up this invoice because it had the same address and same telephone number but again no proof that mr lopez months on did this had had any knowledge that this invoice was in fact possibly a fake invoice and moreover and more importantly what the purchaser identified as a different person on the price was different i mean there were just i don't know how you can  well if there were no there were no inconsistent well first of all my my argument to the court that there's no inconsistent statements goes to let's properly define what an inconsistent statement is under the factor way i answer judge smith was perhaps what judge smith is relating is is there an implausible explanation that's where you tend to see extrinsic evidence being used by the government to disprove what the defendant said but when an implausible explanation that being analyzed by this court what this court is generally looking at is how could he possibly not know that all of that marijuana was in the back of the truck how could he possibly not know that half of his gas tank was filled with marijuana and that he had to refuel and refuel and refuel here the government is how can how can you really argue in good faith that the story about ruben is not implausible he goes out and buys this piece of equipment jointly with someone whose last name he doesn't know and the only thing you knows about him is that he owns a car lot somewhere and in guatemala there's there's there's nothing possible about a story the next question for the court is how is that relevant to mister guilty knowledge when he admitted all along i am the owner of the truck it would be one thing if there was a question as to who owned the truck but what we're what we're talking about judgment right now is a possible implausible explanation on a factor that doesn't really matter because mr lopez months saw and admitted from the very beginning this is my truck i own the truck so whether he bought it from a guy that we don't agree with we don't like the fact that he doesn't know the guy's last name he did give information what he had the guy's name was reuben any owns car dealerships in wa tamala he gave all the information he had but again how does that go jury was asked to find was did he know that what was in that fuel tank was meth amphetamine as opposed to gasoline and what mr low puzzled look plus months on told the jury or he didn't testify but what is our lawyer told the jury was he never knew that there was methamphetamine in the fuel tape he knew it was defective when he bought it so he knew all along and he didn't try to resell that fuel tank he bought it he knew it was defective he said it was always sitting at  and even though nothing ever drained out so what he told law enforcement officials was this is my truck i bought it for seven thousand dollars just claim and i think you were starting to ask a question about you know he said he paid this amount but the invoices showed a different amount well that the way that that is not proven to be an implausible explanation is he said they they put in money together so what mr locust months on state said was i paid twelve thousand five hundred for it or he said i paid seven thousand for invoices showed twelve thousand five hundred but if they put in money together and the two cashiers check that mr lopez months on has a amounts to seven thousand that makes complete sense that's not an implausible explanation then when the implausible explanation factor is in the lies by this court traditionally it's in a situation where there's a truck that has been altered and something big you know big big amount of marijuana or something has been filled into the trunk that the individual couldn't use the trunk as normal or the gas tank had been altered where a large amount of marijuana or methamphetamine had been put in there and so the individual driving the truck couldn't use the fuel tank as normal so that would make that an implausible explanation according to this court in cases like that here mr la paz months on never said i used a fuel tank i always used a fuel tank he said all along this was a defective fuel tank i never tried to use it so that's why he would have never known that there was methamphetamine in the tank he said all along this is my car i bought this car hauler never never disavowed that statement and so the things that the government's pointing to to show guilty knowledge don't show guilty knowledge they're consistent with everything mr lowe plus one zones stated when you're when you're trying to decide did mr lopez have those months on have guilty knowledge remember he was in mexico when the truck was seized he comes to the u s border with his luggage with all of his paperwork to show ownership of this truck to try to get this truck that is that someone that has guilty knowledge of methamphetamine in the truck when he comes across he stops and crosses over he finds a law enforcement officer any stripes convenience store to ask him i see my truck over there i'm trying to get it back does that sound like someone with guilty knowledge of methamphetamines in the truck and then when the court looks at all of the testimony that was given by agent santiago of all of the things that mr look said to him every single one of them were corroborated by the government's investigation the all of the other gas receipts match up all of the other passport stamps match up the few things that the government is relying upon we're talking about a shoe string to connect mr look plus months on to guilty knowledge of the methamphetamines in the this is a man who has no criminal history and now is sitting in prison two hundred ninety months based on he paid cept he paid seven thousand dollars when he shared the cost of the truck and his traveling companion pass one day before him from mexico to go out from guatemala to mexico is that sufficient to sustain that kind of a that kind of a conviction unless of course there was never any was there anything in the record to indicate the street value of meth three million dollars that's per pretty pretty good reason to want to take a chance on retrieving that truck when you say when when he knows that the truck has been detained the truck's been caught there is no sneaking the drugs across the border any more this gentleman walking up to the customs station saying that's my truck santiago said was he believed mr lopez one's own thought that the driver might have been drunk and believed that maybe why he was detained but again your honor we're talking about the truck is now sitting there with the united states government with law enforcement in the go but if you've got three million dollars in the tank the driver has been detained for reasons unrelated to any discovery by officials of the drugs he comes in and says i sent this driver man a man i'm sorry was drunk let me get my truck  i was going to start by pointing out that the reason that mr lopez months old asked for that truck is because the evidence in the record is that he only thought that the truck had been seized because the driver mr brown tell of garcia have been driving under the influence so as far as him coming into the united states of there's any inference the jury can draw that he didn't that's a sign that he didn't know about the methamphetamines because his own statement to the agent santiago is that he thought the driver was drunk so that's the reason the truck had been impounded because they had prosecuted disappeared on the scene correct so we can there's been a lot of discussion about inconsistent statements and plausible explanations i think there are two bigger elephants in the room that show this is a guilty not that mr lucas months i talked to knowledge i think it's important to point out that this isn't a normal hidden compartment case usually those cases are whenever you have a driver who was seized with the stuff in a vehicle that that driver doesn't hear though mr lopez months on mexico between that point they entered mexico from guatemala and december seventeenth or eighteenth they get to the u s border eight or nine days later mr lopez months on has been in control of that truck the entire time and that is important because we look at all these extra factors for circumstantial evidence and knowledge in secret compartment cases because there's a fair assumption that if the driver is not the owner and not in control that there may be some party that's using this unwitting driver as part of a drug trend traffic that's not the situation mr lopez munson bought this truck in guatemala has been with this truck since he got from guatemala to the united states border so i think that alone is a basis to infer knowledge just from his complete control over the vehicle as it traveled from my understanding is you have to still go and then the other so that you could even if one went out the line wouldn't connect so say you got a hole in one you wouldn't continue to lose all your fuel you just lose that one take account but again the fact that there's a broken tank here i think in and of itself is enough circumstantial evidence of knowledge because mr hope the record evidence is that mr lopez months on has been doing this coming to mexico or come to the united states by cars bring him back to guatemala to sell for several years he would know that that he'd new home alone the tank was effective jetport of the recruits so he said that he knew that that tank wasn't working and quote it didn't bother him but that itself is an implausible explanation for why you would this is over a thousand mile something like that and maybe all that really i think with the implausibility comes in is the fact that he didn't stop along the way at any point and try to fix that so this court has held that there are situations where if you know you've got a defective gas tank and are continuing to take a link the journey it's almost  illful ignorance or deliberate in deference to not try to fix that to figure out what the problem is that if this really bothered him or it you would think that if you got this problem you would either stop and fix it there's record evidence that they stopped for repairs lied so it's not like it was a major problem with the fuel tank and self to fix that one little thing so that it's continuing journey into the united states it would be plausible that you would want to have both fuel tanks for that so i think the fact that he knew that this fuel tank was broken that it continued to operate with this thing it's perfectly rational for a reasonable juror to infer that he knew the reason that this isn't working is because it's full of math that's not full of free gas and even if it was full of free gas at some point he could stop and siphon of this vehicle coming into mexico and into the united states that whole process there's just an inconsistency is a implausibilities between the documents that were found in the vehicle itself and what mr lopez months on told a i think on top of that in addition to both the passport stamped it's whether they came across from guatemala to mexico at the same date or on different dates as well as the documents about the purchase price and with the purchase from there's a lot of obfuscation by mr lopez months on  discussions with in santiago about the fact that there was a second tractor trailer that they were at the hotel paina that they plan to bring into the united states there was a mechanical issues with the blinker that probably wouldn't pass d o t inspection once they got into the united states so it was left on the side now if it's interesting that they bring these two vehicles up here but they both once they get the vehicle that has them that's antenna means across the border both crossover mr lopez was almost pushed me driving the one that stayed in mexico ye sort of staying with that vehicle getting the blinker fixed and then bring it so bring it over the next day he proceeded to cross and go find a vehicle that had the goods three million dollars worth of methamphetamine which far outpaces the value of either the stocks that cost twelve thousand five hundred dollars well but that but that part of the story at least would be consistent with his thought that the driver had been detained for intoxication so maybe that truck effectively was sort of marooned there unless he came across to do something with it but he also could've knowing that it's still there we didn't come across with me to ensure that the other truck was coming to and there's no more based on what is in santiago said it's more like a general sense of nervousness he would turn red occasionally while answering the question i would not rely on just that i think that's an additional in addition of knowledge but that nervousness at the end of the new mr lopez months on the brief there were some references to the government trying to pile inference upon inference that's not what we're doing in this case and this test is more of the totality of the circumstances you're looking at all the circumstantial evidence to figure out whether the jury could draw a reasonable conclusion that the defendant had knowledge of controlled substances so it's not piling inferences upon inferences by nature circumstantial evidence is going to have something for us as the jury has to draw just what inferences and do those inferences support  finding of knowledge the government would so that in this case that they do that there's more than sufficient evidence to mr lopez months on knew that this truck that he owned that you control that he was bringing into the united states had well over one hundred kilograms of methamphetamine and it was to court as any other bubble the one of the statements made was why didn't mr locust months on sticks that fuel tank or drain the fuel first the hendrix the williams hendrix case which this court handed down where the court blamed the defendant for not fixing the de that case the defendant had a mechanic traveling with him his son was with him and was a mechanic this case is material or different i don't know why he didn't fix the fuel tank i can't tell you why but holding it against him for not fixing it i don't think is sufficient to call that an implausible explanation additionally i don't think there's evidence in the record to show that the amount of methamphetamine that was found in the truck traveled the entire route from guatemala all the way so that this extra weight that was being talked about costing more gas to travel from guatemala all the guatemala always nice states eight hundred one hundred gallons eight hundred extra pounds there's no evidence in the record to show that there was the weight was there all we know is mr lopez months on stated i knew it was defective all along it didn't bother me there was some talk about possibly being extra fuel in the tank how much i don't know what happened in that extra fuel i don't know but we're there's gaps in the evidence to support that inference by the jury and the case is materially different because they're in the hendrix case the defendant had a mechanic travelling with him so this was a three day jury trial and because we look at the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict which was actually