Court Opinion

ID: 9399661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 00:00:34.907467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.105328
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50156         Document: 00516775146             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50156
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     June 5, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Oscar Santiago Garcia Sanchez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-122-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Oscar Santiago Garcia Sanchez was convicted by a jury for possession
   with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The
   district court sentenced Garcia Sanchez to 151 months in prison to be
   followed by five years of supervised release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50156      Document: 00516775146           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                     No. 22-50156

          On appeal, Garcia Sanchez argues that the district court erred in
   denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
   Amendment during the warrantless border search. We review a district
   court’s findings on a motion to suppress for clear error, and the court’s
   ultimate conclusions on whether the Fourth Amendment was violated de
   novo. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2010). Garcia
   Sanchez argues that drilling into the keyholders concealing the
   methamphetamine violated the Constitution because the Customs and
   Border Protection (CBP) officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the
   keyholders contained contraband prior to the intrusive and destructive
   search. Contrary to Garcia Sanchez’s argument, the CBP officers’ testimony
   articulated clear and specific reasons why the officers suspected that the
   keyholders may have contained contraband. Accordingly, Garcia Sanchez
   has not shown that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
   See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 440.
          Garcia Sanchez also argues that the evidence was insufficient to allow
   the jury to find that he knew that the keyholders contained narcotics. This
   claim is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d 626, 630 (5th
   Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Control over a vehicle that contains
   contraband can support an inference of knowledge of the contraband. United
   States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990). When contraband
   is hidden, however, “additional circumstantial evidence that is suspicious in
   nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge” is required. United States v. Mudd,
   685 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). In addition to Garcia Sanchez’s sole control of the vehicle, there
   was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to infer his
   knowledge of the methamphetamine. See United States v. Vargas-Ocampo,
   747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Del Aguila-Reyes,
   722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983).

                                              2
Case: 22-50156     Document: 00516775146           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                    No. 22-50156

          Finally, Garcia Sanchez argues that he is entitled to a new trial because
   the prosecutor made an inaccurate statement during the rebuttal portion of
   his closing argument. Plain error review applies because Garcia Sanchez did
   not object to the prosecutor’s remarks. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
   511, 515 (5th Cir. 2005). To succeed on plain error review, Garcia Sanchez
   must show a clear or obvious error, “i.e., the prosecutor’s remarks were
   improper,” that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Aguilar, 645
   F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if the prosecutor’s statement regarding
   the number of people who had weighed the methamphetamine was incorrect,
   Garcia Sanchez does not dispute that the keyholders contained 3.4 kilograms
   of methamphetamine. Without a significant dispute as to the accuracy of the
   weight of the methamphetamine, the statement had no significant prejudicial
   effect. See United States v. Smith, 814 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2016).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             3