### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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: * R a jkumar Rikhiram appeals from his jury verdict c o nvictio n f o r p o s s e s s io n with intent to distribute approximately 2457.82 kilograms of marijuana and his sente n c e of 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The Government has filed a motion to sup p l e ment the record on appeal with trial exhibits and a motion s e e k i n g 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-41233 Document: 00511681973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2011No. 10-41233

m otion to strike as to the document at Tab A of the appendix and d e n y th e Government’s motion as to the remainder of the appendix. Rikhiram argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to sup p ort the jury’s verdict because it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the mariju a n a h idden in the trailer he was driving. Because he preserved this challenge below, we review thi s i s s u e d e novo to determine whether a n y r e a s onable trier of fact could have found that the Government proved the essential elements o f th e 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 favo r able to the jury verdict and

. . . a f

f i r m if a rational trier of fact could have found that the government proved all essential elements of the crime b e y o n d a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Lankford , 196 F.3d 5 6 3 , 5 7 5 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rikhiram lied in his initial statement to the United States Border Patrol, he gave i n c o n s istent accounts of the events prece di n g 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 th e G overnment offered sufficient circumstantial evidence of Rikhiram’s knowledge of the hidden marijuana to meet this test. Rikhiram contends that the district court erre d b y f a iling to apply the safety-valve provision to his se n t e n c e . We review the district court’s legal interpretation of the safety-valve standard de nov o, and we review the district court’s determination of whether the defendant has provided full disclosure for

c l e a r e r r o r . 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). B e c a u s e Rikhiram initi ally 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: 12/01/2011No. 10-41233

contin u e s t o maintain his innocence, he has not shown that the district court clearly erred by finding that he had not truth f u l l y d e briefed 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 t o s h o w t h at the district court abused its discretion by excluding that testimony. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RE C O R D ON APPEAL GRANTED; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAT I O N GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

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