Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50636 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. AB EL D IAZ D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R

- 1456- 2
B e fo r e S M IT H , S T E W A R T , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * AbelD i az a p p e a ls h is co n v iction s a n dse n te n ce s fo r o n e co u n t of conspiracy to p oss ess w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e a nd one c ountof pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entto di st ribu t e 1, 000 k i l ogram s or m ore of m arij u an a. T h e d i st ri ctcourtsentenced hi m w i t hi n t he advi so r y s ent enc i ng G ui deli nes range t o c onc urr entt er m s of 188 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. W e A F F IR M
. D ia z c o n t e n d s th a tth e e v id e n c e w a s n o ts u ff ic ie n tto s u p p o r tth e ju r y ’s ve r di c tb e c aus e t he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o a ddu c e e vi de nc e t hathe kne w a bo ut United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 30, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50636

2 th e m a r iju a n ainth e tr a ile r . W e w ill u p h o l d t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d ic t if are a s o n a b le t ri er of fa ct co u ldcon cl u de f rom t h e evi den ce th at th e el em en t s of t h e of fen se w e r e e s ta b lis h e db e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t. Ja c k s o n v . V irg in ia, 443 U
. S. 307, 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); seeUn i t ed S t ate s v. D eL eon , 247 F. 3d 593, 596 n. 1 ( 5t h C i r . 2001)
. P roof of i n volvem en ti n a d rug con spi racy requi res evi den ce of “ ( 1) t h e exi st en ce of an agreem en tbetw een t w o or m ore persons t o vi ol ate th e n arcot i cs l aw s, (2 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s k n o w le d g e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , a n d( 3 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s vo l u n tarypa rti ci p a ti on i n the con sp i ra cy . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G allard o- Trapero , 1 8 5 F
. 3 d30 7 , 31 7 ( 5 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ). T o p rov e g u i l t of po sse ssion w i thi n ten t t o di s t r ibut e ac o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e , t he G o ve r nm en tm us te s t ab l i s h: ( 1) kn ow l edg e, ( 2) possess i on , an d ( 3) i n t en tt o di st ribu t e t h e con t rol l ed s u b s ta n c e . Un itedS ta tes v. So lis , 2 9 9 F .3d4 2 0 , 4 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). Th e e vi denc e pr es ent ed att r i als how ed the f oll ow i ng. O n M ay 27, 2007, at ap pr o xi m at e l y 4: 30 a . m . , at r ac t o r - t r ail e ra ppr o ac he d the b o r de rc he c kpo i nt n ear Sier ra B l an ca, T exas. D i az w as a pa ssenger i n t h e t ruck, an d hi s broth er w as dr ivi ng. A b o r de r pa t r o l c ani ne al e r t e d t o t he pr e s e nc e o f peop l e an d/ or i l l egalnar c ot i c s i n t he t r ai l er . U pon i nspec t i on, a ge n ts fou nd a t ot alof 3, 405 po unds o f

m ar ij uanai ns i de t he t r ail e r . Di az i nf o r m e d the a ge ntt hathe s aw t he tru ckl oa d edat 1:00 a.m . on M a y 2 7 , 20 0 7 , bu t t ri a ltesti m on y re ve a l edtha t both D i az br ot her s w er e pr es entw hen th e tru ck w a s l oade d w i t h ca r go on M ay 25, 2 0 0 7
. D ia z w a s s a idto b e n e rv o u s w h e n th e tr u c kw a s b e in glo a d e d
. T h i s evi den ce w as suf f i ci en tt o sup port t h e convi ct i on s. T h e evi den ce of D i az’ s being present w h en the t ruck w as loadedtw o day s earli er, contr ad i ct ed D i az’ s s t at em enttoau t hor i t i es thathe and hi s br ot herhad pi c ked up t he l oad ju s t afe w h o u r s b e fo r e a r r iv in ga t t h e ch e c k p o in t. Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Phi l l i ps , 4 9 6 F .2 d1 3 9 5 , 1 3 9 8 n .6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ) (s ta tin gth a t a “le s s -th a n -c r e d ib le expl anat i on” f

ora de f

endant ’ s ac t i ons is “ par tof t he o ver al lc i r c um st ant i al e vi den ce f

rom w h i ch possessi on an d k n ow l edg e m ay be i n ferred” )
. M oreover, the t est i m on y w i t h res pect t o D i az’ s nervou sness du ri n gth e l oad i n g of t h e t ruckN o. 08- 50636

3 p r o v id e s fu r th e rs u p p o r tfo rt h e ju r y ’ s d e te r m in a tio n . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. D i az- Carreon , 915 F
. 2d951 , 954 ( 5th C i r. 199 0) (h ol di n g t h at nervou s beha vi or by a def endantc an c ons t i t ut e ci r c um st ant i alev i denc e thatt he def endantw as awar e o f

t he il l e ga ldr ugs )
. Fi nall y, t he val ue of t he dr ugs ( $2
. 7 m i l l i o n) he l ps c o nf i r m t hat D i az kne w ab o ut t he m ar ij uana be c aus e i t i s unl i ke l y t hat a dr ug o r ga ni z at i o n woul d e nt r us tunkn o w i ng pa r t i c i pa nt s w i t h c ar gow o r t h m i l l i o ns o f d o lla r s . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Ma rtin ez -Mo n civ a is , 14 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 4 -35 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). D ia z ’ s s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e cla im fa ils
. D ia z a ls o co n te n d s th a t a s s e r tio n s re g a r d in gh is fa ilu r e to tu r n h im s e lf in w he n aw ar r antf

o rhi s arrestw as i s s ue d, m ad e a tt r i alb y a D EAa ge nta nd aga i n du ri n g t h e G overnm en t ’ s c l osi n g argu m en t , const i t u t e re v e rs ibl e err or. O u rre v ie w o f th e i s s u e w ith re s p e c t t o th e D E Aa g e n t’s te s tim o n yis fo rp la in e r r o ro n lyb e c a u s e D ia z d idn o t o bje c t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. V aluck , 286 F. 3d 221, 22 8 ( 5th Ci r . 20 02 )
. D i az m us t s ho w af o r fe i t e d e r r o rt hati s c l e aro ro bv i o us a nd th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . P u ck ett v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. C t . 1423, 14 29 ( 20 09 )
. I f

he m ak e s s uc h a s ho w i ng, w e ha vet he di s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c tt he errorbu tonl y i f i t seri ou sly af fect s t h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. D i az ha s no ts ho w n t hata ny e r r o r w i t h respec tt o t he a dm i s s i o n o f t he D E Aagen t ’ s test i m on y af fect ed h i s su bstanti alri gh t s. A s dem on st rat ed ab ove, t he G ove r nm entpr es ent ed s t r ong c i r c um st ant i alev i denc e s how i ng t hatD i az w a s a k n o w in g p a r tic ip a n t in th e d r u gcr im e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 504 F .3 d5 6 1 , 5 7 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W i t h r e ga r ds t o t he t o t he Ass i s t an tU
. S. At t o r ne y’ s s t at e m e ntdur i ng cl osi n g argu m en t , D i az obj ect ed i n t h e d istr ic tcourt . A ccor di n gl y, w e m u st deci de w h et h er th e rem ark w as i m p rop er andw h et h er th e rem ark p rej u di ced D ia z ’ s s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mu n oz , 15 0 F
. 3 d40 1 , 41 4 -15 ( 5 th C i r. 199 8)
. Th e deter m i n ative qu est i on i s w h et h er t h e prosecutor ’ s rem arks cast s e r io u s d o u b t o n th e co r r e c tn e s s o f th e ju r y ’ s v e r d ic t. Un itedS ta tes v. Ire d ia ,N o. 08- 50636

4 8 6 6 F .2 d1 1 4 , 1 1 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). H e r e , D ia z ’ s a s s e r te dfa ilu r e t o tu r n h im s e lf in w a s n o t s tr o n ge v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt, a n dinlig h t o f th e o th e re v id e n c e o f h is know i ng par t i c i pat i on i n t he dr ug c r i m es , t he r em ar k doe s notcas tser i ous doubt on the corre ctn ess of th e j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. D i az ne xta r gue s t hatt he a s s i gnm e nto f c r i m i nalhi s t o r y po i nt s i n t he PSR w as err on eou s and res u l t ed i n an i n f l ated cri m i n a l h i st ory cat egory. B ecau se D i a z p reserved t hes e c l ai m s by o bj ec t i ng i n t he di st r i c tc our t , r evi ew i s f oran a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 586, 596- 97 ( 2007)
. The P S R assi gn ed t w o cri m i n alh i st ory p oi n t s p u rsuan tto U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4A 1. 1(b) f or a se nt enc e o f

“36 4 days cus t ody w i t h 342 days c r edit” bas ed o n D i az’ s January 28, 2008 c onvi c t i ons f

or bat t er y agai nst a hous ehol d m em berand r es i st i ng/evadi ng/ obs t r uct i ng an of

f i c er . Si nce he ac t ual l y se rved onl y 22 days , D i az ar gues t hat h e shou l d h ave been assess ed on l y o n e p o int f or th i s s en t en ce un der S ect i on 4A 1 .1. H o w ever, D i az’ s s en t en ce w as not suspen ded ; he w as given cr edi tf or tim e s e rv e d
. C o n s e q u e n tly , th e tw o p o in ts w e r e w a r r a n te d
. W i t h re spe c tt o hi s ot heri ss ues c onc er ni ng t he as si gnm entof c r i m i nal h i st ory poi n t s, D i az argu es th at each sen te n ce w as suspen dedan d theref ore qu al i f i es un der S ect i on 4A 1. 1(c) f or onl y on e cr i m i n alhi st ory poi n t . I n each of t hos e cas es , D i az’ s pro bat i on w as r evo ked, and he w as s ent enc ed t o m or e than 60 d ays of

i m pri sonm en tup on t h e revocat i on i n each case. Th ese s en t en ces t her ef or e q ual i f

y f ort w o cri m i n a lhi st or y po i nt s eac h un derSec t i on 4A1. 1(b) pu rsuan tt o Secti on 4A 1. 2(k), w h i ch provides th at “[i]n th e case of a pri or revocat i on of

probati on . . . add t h e ori gi n alterm of i m pri sonm en tt o an y t erm of i m p ri son m en t i m p ose d u p on rev oca ti on ” an d“[t] h e res u l ti n g tota li s u sed to c o m p u te th e cr im in a l h is to r yp o in ts fo r§ 4A 1 .1 ( a ) , (b ) , o r(c ), a s a p p lic a b le .” Thus , D i az ’ s s e nt e nc e w as pr o c e dur all y s o und. F in a lly , D ia z a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le bec ause t he d i stri c tc our tfai l ed t o a ddre ss hi s ar gum entt hatt he c r i m i nal hi st or y c at ego r y r ef

l ec t ed i n t he G ui deli nes ove r r epr es ent ed hi s t r ue c r i m i nalN o. 08- 50636

5 h is to r ys in c e h is fo u rp r io rcr im e s w e r e m i s d e m e a n o r s . W e re v ie w th is argu m e n t fo r pl ai n err or onl y becau se, event h ou gh he ask ed to be sentenced bel ow t he G ui deli nes r ange, he di d notother w i seobj ec tt o the s ent en ce as u n r e a s o n a b le
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3d3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 5 9 (2 0 0 8 ). D i az’ s w i t h i n - G u i del i n es s en t en ce w as not substantivel y u n rea so n able. T h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourt di d not exp l i cit l y ref erence t h e Secti on 355 3( a) fact ors ats e nt e n c i n g , iti m p o s e dDi a z ’ s s e n t e n c e a f t e rl i s t e ni ng t o a r gum e nt s c o nc e r ni ng t h e overrepres en t ati on of h i s c ri m i n alhi st ory, hi s asser t i on t h at he ha d n ever be e n a r r e s t e d f

o rdr ugs bef

o r e , a nd h i s r e que s tf o ras e nt e nc e b e l o w t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o ur t , t he r e f o r e , i m pli c i t l y c o nc l ude d thatt he circ u m sta n ce s o f th e offe n se a n dD ia z ’ s h isto rya n dch aract eri stics d idn o t ju stify a dow n w a rddevi ati on f rom t h e G u i del i n es r an ge. A ccor di n gl y, D i az h as not s h o w n p la in e r r o r . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.