United States v. Bonilla-Morales

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 18, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50412
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ALFREDO BONILLA-MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-01-CR-411-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Alfredo Bonilla-Morales appeals from his jury-verdict
conviction for importation of cocaine and possession with intent
to distribute cocaine. Bonilla was arrested after the vehicle he
drove from Mexico into the United States was found to contain a
large amount of cocaine in a hidden compartment. His sole
argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to prove
the knowledge element for each count of conviction.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50412
-2-
Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, we discern many factors indicating that Bonilla was
aware that the vehicle he was driving contained illegal drugs,
including the fact that he displayed signs of extreme nervousness
before and after his arrest, he provided conflicting statements
to the authorities regarding the details of his trip, he was paid
an extremely generous amount for the time involved in making this
trip, the alterations made to the vehicle to create the hidden
compartment were noticeable to the naked eye, and the vehicle
contained 343 pounds of cocaine. See United States v. Ortega
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998). Regardless of the
standard of review that we apply, Bonilla’s challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the knowledge element of
both counts of conviction fails because the evidence produced at
trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on that basis.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --