Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41769/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41769-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Perez-Cruz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41769

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO PEREZ-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-1028-2

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Perez-Cruz (Perez) appeals his jury-trial conviction

for possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute, more than 100 kilograms of

marijuana. Perez argues that the district court abused its

discretion in allowing certain opinion testimony by law

enforcement agents. He further argues that the evidence was

insufficient to sustain his convictions. 

 Case: 02-41769 Document: 0051340888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2004
No. 02-41769

-2-

Contrary to Perez’s contentions, the law enforcement agents

who testified at his trial did not offer improper opinions

regarding his knowledge of the marijuana. Agents Garza, Medina,

and Hacking offered their analyses of the evidence found in

Perez’s case in the light of their special knowledge as experts

in narcotics trafficking. See United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d

605, 610 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the agents offered

explanations of the facts at trial, rather than forbidden

opinions regarding Perez’s guilty knowledge, see United States v.

Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657, 663 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1114 (2003), the district court did not abuse

its discretion in allowing the testimony.

In asserting that the evidence was insufficient, Perez

challenges the guilty-knowledge elements of the crimes of

conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Government and giving the Government the benefit of all

reasonable inferences, there is sufficient evidence from which

the jury could infer that Perez knew that marijuana was in the

Market Street residence and that he knowingly participated in a

drug-trafficking conspiracy. See United States v. Inocencio, 40

F.3d 716, 724 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence at trial established

that the Market Street house was being used to store and package

marijuana for distribution. Perez had access to the residence,

as shown by his knowledge of the combination to the lock on the

front gate and his ability to open it. The jury could also

 Case: 02-41769 Document: 0051340888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2004
No. 02-41769

-3-

reasonably infer that Perez had previously been inside the

residence based on his ability to open the lock. The cellophane

and grease Perez purchased with Arevalo were being used to

package the marijuana, as indicated by the “black bundle of

cellophane containing marijuana” found by Officer Hernandez. 

Although Perez asserts that he did not know marijuana was in

the house and that he was not part of a conspiracy, the jury

could reasonably infer guilty knowledge and willing participation

in a conspiracy based on the circumstances as a whole. See

United States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 420 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Medina, 887 F.2d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 1989). Because

“a reasonable trier of fact could [have] f[ou]nd that the

evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Perez’s

insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim fails. See United States v.

Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc).

Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 02-41769 Document: 0051340888 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2004