IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41233

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAJKUMAR RIKHIRAM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-567-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rajkumar Rikhiram appeals from his jury verdict conviction for possession

with intent to distribute approximately 2457.82 kilograms of marijuana and his

sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. 

The Government has filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with

trial exhibits and a motion seeking reconsideration of this court’s decision to

allow Rikhiram to file the appendix he submitted with his reply brief. We grant

the Government’s motion to supplement the record. We grant the Government’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 1, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-41233 Document: 00511681973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2011
No. 10-41233

motion to strike as to the document at Tab A of the appendix and deny the

Government’s motion as to the remainder of the appendix.

Rikhiram argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to

support the jury’s verdict because it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that he had knowledge of the marijuana hidden in the trailer he was driving. 

Because he preserved this challenge below, we review this issue de novo to

determine whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the

Government proved the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable

doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); United States v. Olguin,

643 F.3d 384, 393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 80 U.S.L.W. 3218 ( 2011) (Nos. 11-6184

and 11-6294). We “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury

verdict and . . . affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found that the

government proved all essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt.” United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Rikhiram lied in his initial statement to

the United States Border Patrol, he gave inconsistent accounts of the events

preceding his arrest, the trailer he was transporting contained an extremely

valuable amount of marijuana, and he informed law enforcement that he knew

there was something illegal regarding the trailer. Accordingly, examination of

the record shows that the Government offered sufficient circumstantial evidence

of Rikhiram’s knowledge of the hidden marijuana to meet this test.

Rikhiram contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the

safety-valve provision to his sentence. We review the district court’s legal

interpretation of the safety-valve standard de novo, and we review the district

court’s determination of whether the defendant has provided full disclosure for

clear error. United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Rikhiram

initially lied to the United States Border Patrol, his subsequent recounting of the

events preceding his arrest changed many times in significant respects, and he

2

Case: 10-41233 Document: 00511681973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2011
No. 10-41233

continues to maintain his innocence, he has not shown that the district court

clearly erred by finding that he had not truthfully debriefed for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).

Rikhiram also argues that the district court erred by excluding testimony

from Pam Fischer as a fact witness in his defense regarding certain post-arrest

events involving a third party. This court reviews a district court’s evidentiary

ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Nguyen, 504 F.3d 561, 571

(5th Cir. 2007). Rikhiram has failed to show that the district court abused its

discretion by excluding that testimony.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL GRANTED; MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART;

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 10-41233 Document: 00511681973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2011