UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4280

CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-198)

Submitted: July 24, 2002

Decided: August 6, 2002

Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges,

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Following a jury trial, Carlos Alberto Rodriguez-Alvarez was convicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute 461.6 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing marijuana, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2000). Rodriguez-Alvarez

appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction. Finding no merit to his claim, we affirm. 

On September 8, 2000, a North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles Enforcement officer stopped the tractor trailer Rodriguez-Alvarez

was driving to conduct a safety inspection. The trailer was locked and

sealed, and after initially denying that he had a key, RodriguezAlvarez eventually gave the key to the officer who opened the trailer

and discovered a shipment of limes, along with a large quantity of

marijuana. The government presented evidence at trial contradicting

Rodriguez-Alvarez’s claims that he was asleep when the trailer was

loaded and that the produce company loaded the trailer, and locked

and sealed it. Specifically, two witnesses testified that RodriguezAlvarez was present when the trailer was loaded and made specific

requests about the manner in which the cargo was loaded, including

accepting a smaller load than the order indicated. Furthermore, the

witnesses stated that the produce company did not lock and seal trailers and that Rodriguez-Alvarez inquired about seals and also specified that he wanted the cargo destined for Philadelphia placed in the

front of the trailer and the cargo destined for New York in the back

of the trailer, even though the shipment was heading north from

Texas. The jury found Rodriguez-Alvarez guilty. 

On appeal, Rodriguez-Alvarez claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. To prove possession with intent to

distribute marijuana, the government must show that the defendant

knowingly possessed the illegal substance with intent to distribute it.

2 UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ
United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999). In this

appeal, Rodriguez-Alvarez does not dispute that he possessed the

marijuana, nor does he contest the drug quantity. However, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew that he

possessed marijuana or that he intended to distribute the drugs. 

Evidence presented at trial contradicted Rodriguez-Alvarez’s

claims that he was asleep when the limes were loaded and that the

produce company that loaded the limes sealed the trailer. Moreover,

witnesses testified that Rodriguez-Alvarez accepted a smaller load

than ordered and directed that the cargo be loaded in an unusual manner. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that

Rodriguez-Alvarez knowingly possessed the marijuana and intended

to distribute it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see

also United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 873 (4th Cir. 1996) (intent

to distribute may be inferred from quantity greater than amount for

personal consumption). We therefore affirm Rodriguez-Alvarez’s

conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ 3