* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. 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 hisjury 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 toa prior conviction for importation ofmarijuana. 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 ClerkNo. 09-50991 c/w No. 09-50992

2 insufficient evidence showing that he knew there was marijuana in the van he brought into the U n ited 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 G overnment’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 Ci r. 2000). Therefore, we will uphold the jury’s verdict if a reasonable trier offact could conclude from the evidence that the elements ofthe offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt. J ackson 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, 1 85 F.3d at 471 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed that Trautman 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 theNo. 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 noevidence presented showing that Trautman had possession ofthevan 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 f or 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 ofthe evidence was more than sufficient for thejury to infer that Trautman knewthat the marijuana was in thevan. 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 that the district court abused its discretion by revoking hissupervised release. See United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 481 (5th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED.