IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50906

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ALEJANDRO CARDENAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-510-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Alejandro Cardenas was convicted by a jury of two counts of 

fraudulently buying ammunition prior to exportation and two counts of 

attempted exportation of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). The 

district court sentenced Cardenas to 72 months in prison on each count, with 

the terms to run concurrently.

 

* 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

September 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50906 Document: 00513198044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 14-50906

2

On appeal, Cardenas argues the district court should have instructed the 

jury that to find him guilty of violations of § 554(a) (smuggling from the United 

States), it must find that he violated 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c) (control of arms 

exports and imports), with the specific intent to violate the law. We review a 

jury instruction for abuse of discretion, affording substantial latitude to the 

district court in describing the law to the jury. United States v. Santos, 589 

F.3d 759, 764 (5th Cir. 2009). “However, when a jury instruction hinges on a 

question of statutory construction, [this court’s] review is de novo.” United 

States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271, 285 (5th Cir. 2010).

In United States v. Bernardino, 444 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2011), we 

determined that, to establish an offense under § 554(a), the Government is 

required to prove only that the defendant knew he was dealing with 

ammunition that was intended for export and that the exportation was illegal. 

We specifically rejected the argument that the jury charge should have 

included an instruction requiring the Government to prove both that the 

defendant knew that the ammunition was an item for which an export license 

was required and intended to export the weapons without the license. 

Bernardino, 444 F. App’x at 74. We followed Bernardino in United States v. 

Reyes, 559 F. App’x 274 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Bernardino and Reyes are

unpublished and not controlling precedent, they are persuasive. See 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4; Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). We hold

that the district court did not err in instructing the jury.

Cardenas also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

convictions even if the court instructed the jury properly as to elements of the 

offense. “[R]eviewing courts must affirm a conviction if, after viewing the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements 

 Case: 14-50906 Document: 00513198044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 14-50906

3

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 

F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 170 (2014).

Cardenas concedes that he stated that he knew that the ammunition was 

destined for Mexico. Cardenas also concedes that the evidence would allow a 

finding that he suspected that the exportation of ammunition was illegal or 

that he was acting in reckless disregard of whether his actions were illegal but 

asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he actually knew that 

the exportation of ammunition was illegal. This argument ignores that 

Cardenas was told by a federal agent to contact him if Cardenas were contacted 

by any individual in Mexico so that the agent could identify individuals 

involved in the smuggling of ammunition. Cardenas did not provide any 

information to the federal agent even though he made a subsequent 

ammunition purchase for his confederate in Mexico. The evidence is sufficient 

to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardenas knew that the 

exportation of ammunition to Mexico was contrary to the laws of the United 

States. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-50906 Document: 00513198044 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2015