United States v. Wright

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 99-40647
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OUTHER LEE WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C-98-CR-326-1)
_________________________________________________________________
March 1, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Outher Lee Wright, convicted for possession with intent to
distribute approximately 543 kilograms of marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and sentenced to, inter
alia, 79 months imprisonment, contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his conviction; and that the Government
withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963). The marijuana was found in the trailer of
Wright’s truck during a routine inspection at the Falfurrias Border
Patrol checkpoint.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
“A conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana with
intent to distribute requires proof that the defendant
(1) knowingly (2) possessed marijuana (3) with intent to distribute
it.” United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 517 U.S. 1228 (1996). “[K]nowledge of the presence of the
contraband may ordinarily be inferred from the exercise of control
over the vehicle in which it is concealed.” United States v.
Richardson, 848 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in
original). When drugs are hidden in a vehicle, such knowledge can
be inferred only “if there exists other circumstantial evidence
that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowledge.”
United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.)(quoting United
States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1236 (5th Cir. 1990)),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 926 (1993). Wright was the driver of the
truck. Coupled with his numerous inconsistent statements at the
time of the offense and at trial, the inference of knowledge is
supported. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 &
n.16 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accepting the jury’s credibility determinations, as we must,
the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 507 U.S. 943 (1993).
Wright claims that, in violation of Brady, it was not
disclosed that two adverse witnesses had a business relationship.
This was fully disclosed to the jury at trial. Wright’s defense
was that he did no more than drive the truck and that someone else

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
loaded the marijuana into it. Wright has not stated how his
defense was prejudiced because this association was not disclosed
earlier. United States v. Green, 46 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1167 (1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --