United States v. Young

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
August 26, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-41594
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLYNN FARSE YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-03-CR-724-2
- - - - - - - - - -
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glynn Farse Young appeals his convictions, following a jury
trial, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute less
than 50 kilograms of marijuana and possession of less than 50
kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846. The district court sentenced Young
to concurrent 60-month prison terms and three-year terms of
supervised release.
Young contends that the trial evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction of either count. The standard for

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-41594
-2-
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence is whether “a rational
trier of fact could have found that the evidence establishes the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 2003)
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Review
of the sufficiency of the evidence does not include review of the
weight of the evidence or of the credibility of the witnesses.
United States v. Garcia, 995 F.2d 556, 561 (5th Cir. 1993).
Young’s primary contention is that his confessions made to
both Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration agents on
the day of his arrest were not sufficient, standing alone, to
support his convictions. See United States v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d
294, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (“a defendant generally cannot be
convicted solely on his uncorroborated admissions”). As the
Government argues, however, independent evidence of Young’s guilt
was adduced at trial. See United States v. Crawford, 52 F.3d
1303, 1309 (5th Cir. 1995). Young was a passenger in a rental
car that had been rented and was driven by his codefendant, Allen
William Woudstra. Although Young’s mere presence in the car as a
passenger was not sufficient by itself to establish his knowing
possession of the 48 kilograms of marijuana that were in the
car’s trunk, it is a factor to be considered in weighing the
circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Roberson, 6 F.3d
1088, 1093 (5th Cir. 1993). Young’s calm demeanor at the time of
his and Woudstra’s arrest also indicted that Young was aware of
the marijuana’s presence in the car. Finally, the jury was
authorized to believe that the testimony given by Young at trial

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-41594
-3-
was implausible, at least in comparison to the stories he told
Border Patrol and DEA agents. Young’s trial testimony required
the jury to believe that Woudstra was paying Young $1,000 to ride
with him hundreds of miles to Texas from their Tennessee hometown
so that Young could help him drive back a “class [pickup] truck.”
Both the basic outline of the story offered at trial and some its
details were less than believable.
The evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy
conviction, because it established that there was an agreement to
possess marijuana with intent to distribute, that Young knew
about the agreement, and that he voluntarily participated in the
conspiracy. See United States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 307 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 934 (2002). The evidence was also
sufficient to support the possession conviction, in that it
showed that the possession was knowing, see United States v.
Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 345 (5th Cir. 2000), and in that the large
quantity of marijuana reflected an intent to distribute. United
States v. Redd, 355 F.3d 866, 873 (5th Cir. 2003).
Young’s convictions are AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --