FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 33 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-2 00 14 -J IC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us MARC HENRY MERELAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 0) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mar c Me rel anap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on of i m po rti ng 50 0 o r m or e g ram s o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 9 52 (a).The ev id en ce attri al est ab li sh edth atMere la n a rri ve d i n M ia m i o n afli gh t

fro m Po rt- au -Pri nc e, Hait i. The go ve rn m en t co ns id eredth is rou te “ hi gh ris k” be cau se itwas o fte n u se d t o s m ug gl e dru gs in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. When Mer el an ’s fli gh t arriv ed , cus to m s o ffi ci al s x -rayed al l t he lu gg ag e fro m th atfli gh t an d n ot ic edth aton e o f Mer el an ’s bag s was un us ua ll y de ns e. Cu st om

an d B or de r Pro te ct io n Off

ic er Ba rzel ay

op en edth e b ag an d d is co ve reda gi ft- wrap pe d wo od en pl aque . As of

fic ia ls in sp ect edth e p la qu e, th ey no ti ceda whi te po wde r res idue th at fie ldtes te d p os it iv e fo r co cai ne . They re-wrap pe d t he pl aque , rep la ceditin th e 1 ba g, an d s en t the ba g t o b ag ga ge cla im . Afte r Mer el anpi ck edup th e b ag , alo ng with a no th er p ie ce o f lu gg ag e, Offi cer Nav ed o s to pp edan d que st io ne d h im . Merel anst at edth atth e b ag s wer e hi s an d t ha t h e was no t ca rry in g a nyth in g fo r an y on e el se . W he n Nav ed o o pe ne d th e b ag an d a sk edab ou t t he pl aque , Mere la n s ta te d t ha t i t was a gi ft f orhi s gi rlf rie nd . Duri ng furth er que st io ni ng , Nave do co nduc te d a no th er fi el d t es t i n fro ntof M erel an ; M erel andi d n otres po ndwhen th e fi el d t es t s ho wedth e p owd er to be co cai ne . Merel anwas a rres te d a ndgi ve n h is Mir an da rig ht s, af te r whi ch 2 Mer el anex pl ai ne d tha t a m anha d g iv enhi m th e b ag to bri ng to th e Uni te d S ta te s. The pa rties stipulated that the amount of dr ug s involved was 970.2 grams. 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 2Mer el anco ul d n otde sc rib e th e m anan d d idno t kno w whatth e m anha d b een

weari ng , no r di d h e kno w th e m an ’s nam e. Whi le Mere la n was be in g p ro ces se d, Nav ed o o ve rh eardhi m

say tha t h e was carry in g t he ba g fo r so m eo ne els e b uthe ne ve r m en ti on edth e p ers on ’s nam e. Inhi s o wn t es ti m on y , Mere la n s ta te d tha t h e was tra ve li ng to th e Uni te d St at es to vi si t h is wife an d c hi ld ren . At th e ai rp ort i n Hai ti , a fri en d n am ed Ro m an , acco m

pa ni edby ano th er m anMere la n d idno t kno w, ask edMere la n t o carry hi s b ag so th athe co ul d a vo idth e ex ces s b ag ga ge fee. Ro m ansh owe d Mer el anth e co nt en ts of t he ba g andsai d t ha t t he pl aque was aBib le . An imm ig rat io n o ffi cer a dv is edhi m th atth e b ag ha d b een ch eck edan d was saf e to carry . Whe n a sk edab ou t h is st at em en ts to cu st om s o ffi ci al s af te r hi s arriv al , Mer el anres po nd edth athe ha d s ai d t he ba g was hi s b ecau se he di d n otbe li ev e th ere was an yth in g i ll eg al in th e lu gg ag e an d h e d idno t wan t Ro m anto be ch arg ed fo r th e ex traba g. He ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e to ldNave do th atth e p la qu e was a gi ft f or hi s g irl fri en d b ecau se Nave do ha d a dm ire d t he pl aque an d h e was ve ry pro ud . He fu rth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e co op erat edwith Nav ed o’s i nv es ti ga ti on be cau se he be li ev edth ere was no th in g i ll eg al in th e b ag s. Aft er h e le arn edth atoff ic ia ls ha d fo un d c oc ai ne on th e p la qu e, he pa ni ck edbe cau se he wou ldno t h av e b ro ug ht 3drug s i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s. He the n a dm it te d t o o ffi ci al s t ha t was carry in g t he

ba g fo r an ot he r m anth athe ha d m etat t he air po rt. Dur in g c ro ss -ex am in at io n, M erel anst at edth athe was g oi ng to vi si t h is wife , bu t h e d idno t kno w hercu rren t ad dr es s. He ex pl ai ne d tha t h is bro th er-i nla w was t o g iv e h im

th e ad dr es s wh enhe arri ve d. He s ta te d t ha t h e d idno t g iv e Ro m an ’s nam e to th e cu st om s ag en ts be cau se th ey di d n otaskforit . Bas edon th is ev id en ce, the jury co nv ic te d M erel anof i m po rti ng 50 0 g ram s orm or e o f co cai ne , bu t ac qu it te d h im of t he sec on d c ha rg e–

po ss es si ng with i nt en t to di st rib ut e co cai ne . The co urt s en te nc edMere la n t o 6 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Mer el anno w app eal s. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng a cri m in al co nv ic ti on de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. K ha na ni , 50 2 F .3d12 81 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W he n rev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, al l ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es m

us t b e v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Id . Bec au se th e jury is fr ee t o c ho os e am on g re as on ab le co ns tru ct io ns of t he ev id en ce, we m us t ac cep t t he jury’ s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns an d i nf

eren ces . Id . The go ve rn m en t i s re qu ire d t o p ro ve each ele m en t o f th e ch arg edoff en se be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t o s us ta in a co nv ic ti on . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro ge rs , 94 F.3 d 1 51 9, 1 52 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) . To es tabl is h i m po rta ti on of 5 00 or m or e g ram s 4of

co cai ne in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 9 52 (a) t he go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve (1) th e de fen da ntim

po rte d c oc ai ne in to th e Uni te d S ta te s fr om a pl ace o ut si de th ereo f, (2 ) he di d s o kno win gl y

an d wi ll fu ll y , and(3) th e wei gh t o f th e co cai ne im po rte d by the de fen da ntwas i n e xc es s o f 50 0 g ram s. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro dr ig uezSu ar ez , 85 6 F .2d13 5, 1 40 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). At is su e in th is cas e is whet he r th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh Mere lan’s kno wled ge . To es tabl is h t ha t t he de fen da ntact edkn owi ng ly, th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve th atth e d efen dantha d kno wled ge of aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e in hi s p os se ss io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mer cer , 54 1 F .3d10 70 , 10 76 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Dire ctev id en ce of kn owl ed ge , ho wev er, i s n otne ces sa ry to su st ai n [t he de fen da nt ’s] co nv ic ti on ; th e g ov ern m en t m ay

pro ve it s ca se th ro ug h c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Qui lc a- Ca rp io , 11 8 F .3d71 9, 7 21 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Whe n ade fen da nt te st ifi es , th e jury is “ free to reject ” th attes ti m on y an d c anin fer t ha t t he op po si te is tru e. Mo reo ve r, th e jury m ay co ns id er s uc h e vi de nc e as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f gu il t. Uni te d Sta tes v. J

imi ne z , 56 4 F .3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) . Here, t he ev id en ce attri al est ab li sh edth atMere la n p ic ke d up t he ba g co nt ai ni ng th e co cai ne fro m th e b ag ga ge cla im , andth athe in it ia ll y cla im ed own ers hi p b oth o f th e b ag an d o f th e p la qu e in si de th e b ag . In h is tes ti m on y , 5Mer el anst at edth athe di d n otbe li ev e th ere was an yth in g i ll eg al in th e b ag an d

ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e wou ldno t h av e b ro ug htdru gs in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e jury was free to di sb el ie ve Mere la n’s t es ti m on y an d c on si de r itis subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce of hi s g ui lt . Mor eo ve r, th e jury, whe n fa cedwith t he va rio us in co ns is te nc ie s i n Mer el an ’s exp la na ti on s, co ul d h av e fo un d h is tes ti m on y in cred ib le . W e wil l n ot di sturb t he jury’ s cr ed ib il it y fin di ng s. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d M erel an ’s kn owi ng im po rta ti onof c oc ai ne . His c on vi ct io n i s AFFIRMED.

6