Opinion ID: 627196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count Two: Possession with the Intent To Distribute

Text: The offense of possession with the intent to distribute requires proof of (1) possession, (2) knowledge, and (3) intent to distribute. United States v. Garcia, 567 F.3d 721, 731 (5th Cir.2009). Vasquez challenges only the knowledge element. The knowledge element in a possession case can be inferred from control of the vehicle in some cases; when the drugs are hidden, however, control alone is not sufficient to prove knowledge. United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir.1994). When the drugs are secreted in hidden compartments . . . this Court has normally required additional circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 544 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have previously recognized that circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge includes, inter alia, the following types of behavior: nervousness, refusal or reluctance to answer questions, inconsistent statements, and obvious or remarkable alterations to the vehicle. Id. The high value of concealed narcotics can also support knowledge. United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir.2003). Here, there was sufficient additional circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to infer Vasquez's knowledge of the cocaine. Officer Salazar testified that after passing inspection Vasquez drove unusually slowly and was highly alert. She testified that Vasquez was nervous when the Suburban was inspected. Officer Tims testified that Vasquez exhibited nervousness when questioned, and that he initially denied, but then admitted, owning the vehicle. ICE Special Agent Grubbs testified that the cocaine found in Vasquez's vehicle was worth approximately $125,000 in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and $275,000 in Austin, Texas. Officer Gonzalez testified that when running on the motorcycle batteries, the Suburban could not draw enough power to run its headlights or air conditioner without burning out the batteries and alternator. A reasonable jury could have inferred from this that the reason Vasquez never used the headlights or air conditioner [4] during the twelve days he had the vehicle was because he was aware of the limitations of the Suburban's modified electrical system.