Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40357/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40357-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Rangel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40357

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADRIAN RANGEL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1334-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adrian Rangel appeals his convictions for possession with intent to 

distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, contending 

that the Government presented insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a 

reasonable doubt, that he knew of the contraband that was found by Border 

Patrol agents concealed inside the altered battery of his car. See United States 

v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 446 (5th Cir. 2002). Viewing the evidence and the 

* 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

February 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40357 Document: 00515307413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2020
No. 19-40357

2

inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, we 

affirm. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Construed in the Government’s favor, the evidence sufficed to permit the 

jury to find that Rangel knew about the contraband hidden in his car’s battery. 

See United States v. Rodriguez, 553 F.3d 380, 389 (5th Cir. 2008). Rangel’s 

arguments to the contrary largely challenge the jury’s decision to believe the 

Government’s witnesses over his own exculpatory testimony and to weigh the 

evidence against him. We will not second-guess the jury’s weight and 

credibility determinations, however. See United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 

482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). Notably, the jury could reasonably find that Rangel’s 

exculpatory explanation for the presence of the drugs in his car was 

implausible. See United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 955 (5th Cir. 

1990).

The jury’s construction of the evidence was reasonable, and its resulting

decision to find Rangel guilty on each count was rational. See United States v. 

Meza, 701 F.3d 411, 422-23 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lopez-Urbina, 434 

F.3d 750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-40357 Document: 00515307413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2020