Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Lorenzo MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 85 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 03-50686
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Lorenzo MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Lorenzo MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50686
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 22, 2003.
Diane D. Kirstein, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Lorenzo Montoya appeals his conviction for importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Montoya argues that the evidence fails to show that he knew that a large quantity of marijuana was hidden in his van. He contends that the evidence shows only he acted negligently in agreeing to drive the van across the border, and not that he knowingly possessed or imported marijuana. He also contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on deliberate ignorance.
The trial evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to find that Montoya knew that there was marijuana hidden under the floor of the van. United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d 900, 905 (5th Cir.1999). Under the facts of the case, we find no error in the trial court's decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction. United States v. Saucedo-Munoz, 307 F.3d 344, 348-49 (5th Cir .2002).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.