Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50099/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Alvarez-Ayala
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50099

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS ALVAREZ-AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-342-2

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Alvarez-Ayala (Alvarez) appeals his 

conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana. He claims that he was incompetent when he admitted transporting 

the drugs in exchange for $2500, noting the testimony of law enforcement

agents that he appeared to be intoxicated or impaired in some way. He 

contends that the only nexus between him and the marijuana was an

* 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

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-50099

admission, which was false. According to Alvarez, without the admission, 

there was insufficient evidence to establish that he possessed the marijuana.

He asserts that his mere presence in the truck carrying 242 pounds of 

marijuana was insufficient, arguing that there was no forensic evidence 

linking him to drugs.

We review Alvarez’s sufficiency claim de novo. See United States v. 

Jimenez, 509 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir. 2007). In determining whether the 

evidence was sufficient, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Alvarez admitted that he was to be paid $2500 to transport the 

marijuana into the United States. Although initially he was mumbling and

unsteady, looking like he just woke up, and acting as though he did not 

understand what was going on, Alvarez “cleared up” as he and border patrol 

agent Scott Morris “started talking and having a discussion.” Morris testified 

that Alvarez “knew what he was doing” and answered questions appropriately. 

They chitchatted and made small talk, and Alvarez seemed interested when 

discussing Morris’s father’s career as a truck driver.

DEA agent Mark Ruckman testified that Alvarez understood the 

Miranda1 warnings and appeared competent to waive his rights. Ruckman 

also testified that, when Alvarez “started telling the truth, he perked up” and 

“convers[ed] like a normal person.”

During his own testimony, Alvarez did not state that he was too impaired 

to understand what was going on at the time of his admission. Instead, he 

testified that he was coerced into making the confession, a contention that he 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2

 

 Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-50099

does not raise on appeal. Moreover, the story Alvarez provided to law 

enforcement contained multiple implausibilities and unexplained 

inconsistencies.

The jury received evidence placing him inside the warehouse where the 

truck had been dismantled and the marijuana packaged. In addition, the jury 

heard testimony that Alvarez had gone on a trip with others in the truck to 

scout locations for crossing the border with a load of marijuana. Less than a 

week later, he was apprehended at the checkpoint in the same truck carrying 

more than 242 pounds of marijuana.

Although Alvarez denied any involvement with the marijuana, “[w]e will 

not second guess the jury in its choice of which witnesses to believe.” United 

States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1260 (5th Cir. 1994). Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty 

verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; United States v. Jimenez, 509 F.3d 682, 

689 (5th Cir. 2007) (listing elements of the offense); United States v. Casilla, 

20 F.3d 600, 606 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding implausible and inconsistent stories 

support finding of guilty knowledge). The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2014