* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50991

c/w No. 09-50992

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT VINCENT TRAUTMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2623-1

USDC No. 3:08-CR-2967-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Vincent Trautman appeals his jury trial convictions for conspiracy

to import marijuana, importation of marijuana, and possession of marijuana

with intent to distribute and the concomitant revocation of supervise release

related to a prior conviction for importation of marijuana. Trautman argues that

the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 15, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 09-50991

c/w No. 09-50992

2

insufficient evidence showing that he knew there was marijuana in the van he

brought into the United States. He maintains that the revocation of his

supervised release, based upon his new convictions, was erroneous because the

evidence was insufficient to support his new convictions.

Trautman’s motions for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the

Government’s case and at the close of the evidence preserved for review his

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Mendoza, 226

F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will uphold the jury’s verdict if a

reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence thatthe elements ofthe

offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is viewed in

the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Resio-Trejo,

45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995).

The sole issue raised on appeal is Trautman’s knowledge of the drugs, an

element necessary for each of his convictions. See United States v. Maltos, 985

F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th

Cir. 1999); United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993).

“Ordinarily, knowledge of the existence of drugs may be inferred from control

over the location in which they are found. When the drugs are secreted in a

hidden compartment, however, we require additional circumstantial evidence

that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.” Moreno, 185

F.3d at 471 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the

evidence showed thatTrautman initially told Officer Susanna Flores that he was

entering the United States to visit his daughter, a story inconsistent with his

later claim that he was traveling to the United States to give the van to Roberto

Alvarez. Furthermore, Trautman’s claim that he did not know that there was

marijuana in the van even though he was supposed to drive the van into the
No. 09-50991

c/w No. 09-50992

3

United States and then give it to Alvarez, a man he had never met, was

implausible at best. Additionally, Trautman acted nervously and did not make

eye contact during the initial inspection ofthe van by Officer Flores. While there

was no evidence presented showing that Trautman had possession ofthe van for

a long period of time, the testimony of Officer Lynn Santiago indicated that the

alteration to the interior roof of the van was obvious even if one was in the van

for a short period of time. Finally, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that

Trautman would not have been entrusted to possess the 104 pounds of

marijuana in the van unless he was involved in the drug smuggling conspiracy.

See United States v. White, 219 F.3d 442, 447-48 (5th Cir. 2000). Although

Trautman argues that there are innocent explanations for each of these factors

individually, the totality of the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to

infer that Trautman knew that the marijuana was in the van. See United States

v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 466-67 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Trautman

has not shown that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. See

id. As Trautman has not shown that his new convictions were invalid, he has

not shown thatthe district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised

release. See United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 481 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.