United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40323 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Edgar Yvan Moreno Barragan, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:20-CR-240-7 

______________________________ 

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Edgar Yvan Moreno Barragan appeals his conviction of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and aiding 

and abetting the possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more 

of cocaine, as well as the resulting concurrent terms of 120 months of 

imprisonment. First, he argues that the district court erred by denying his 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 13, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40323 Document: 00516893794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-40323 

2 

motion for a judgment of acquittal. He acknowledges that the Government 

established the possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of 

cocaine by multiple individuals, a conspiracy to do the same, and even the 

transportation of such cocaine. He disagrees, however, that the Government 

provided any evidence that he voluntarily participated in the conspiracy or 

aided and abetted the possession with intent to distribute the cocaine. 

Here, there was ample evidence introduced at trial to permit a rational 

jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Moreno Barragan voluntarily 

participated in the conspiracy. See United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 

770-71 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358, 366 (5th Cir. 

2012). In light of the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could infer 

that the mechanic shop was not an operational shop at all, but a location 

where conspirators loaded hidden compartments in vehicles with cocaine for 

further transport to various locations. Likewise, a reasonable jury could infer 

that the hidden compartment in the car that Moreno Barragan drove was 

loaded with cocaine at the mechanic shop and unloaded once it arrived at the 

North 32nd Street residence. In light of the aforementioned reasonable 

inferences, law enforcement testimony placed Moreno Barragan with the 

vehicle while cocaine was being loaded into and unloaded from the vehicle. 

It would be unreasonable for Moreno Barragan to be present for loading and 

unloading of cocaine were he not a knowledgeable participant in the 

conspiracy. See United States v. White, 219 F.3d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Further, his nervousness and dishonesty during the traffic stop are evidence 

of “guilty knowledge of and participation in the charged conspiracy.” United 

States v. Ayala, 887 F.2d 62, 68 (5th Cir. 1989). Finally, multiple text 

messages, pictures, and videos on Moreno Barragan’s phone, taken together, 

suggest his involvement in narcotics trafficking. 

Similarly, there was sufficient evidence introduced at trial to permit a 

rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Moreno Barragan 

Case: 22-40323 Document: 00516893794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-40323 

3 

aided and abetted the possession with intent to distribute cocaine. See 

Ragsdale, 426 F.3d at 770-71; United States v. Scott, 892 F.3d 791, 798-99 (5th 

Cir. 2018). As is typical, the trial evidence supporting Moreno Barragan’s 

participation in the conspiracy also supports his aiding and abetting 

conviction. See Scott, 892 F.3d at 799. Accordingly, the district court did not 

err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 

at 770-71. 

Moreno Barragan did not adequately brief, and has thus waived, his 

contention that the district court committed legal error by telling the jury that 

the law did not allow it to aid the jury in understanding a jury instruction. See 

United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2009); United States 

v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Alternatively, Moreno Barragan argues that the district court erred by 

finding him ineligible for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because 

he chose to go to trial. The sentencing transcript makes clear that the district 

court was aware of its ability to award a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility despite Moreno Barragan’s decision to go to trial. Because 

Moreno Barragan continued to deny his involvement in the cocaine 

conspiracy and trafficking efforts, there is nothing in the record suggesting 

sincere contrition on his behalf. See United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 

F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2). 

Accordingly, the district court’s decision to deny the reduction was not 

without foundation. See United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 410 

(5th Cir. 2020). 

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-40323 Document: 00516893794 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2023