(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 93-7141
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BURLINGTON ALEXANDER CARD,
a/k/a Burlington Card,
a/k/a Berlington Card,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(M-92-202-03)
_________________________________________________________________
(January 18, 1994)
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Burlington Card was found guilty by a jury of 1) conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine; 2) aiding and abetting
possession with intent to distribute cocaine; 3) conspiracy to
import cocaine; 4) aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine;
5) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana; 6)

-- 1 of 8 --

-2-
aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana;
7) conspiracy to import marijuana; and 8) aiding and abetting the
importation of marijuana. The district court sentenced Card to
concurrent terms of imprisonment of 133 months on counts 1-4, to be
followed by concurrent four-year terms of supervised release. Card
was sentenced to concurrent terms of sixty months on counts four
through eight, to be followed by concurrent three-year terms of
supervised release. All of the sentences are to run concurrently.
The question raised on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient
to support the convictions. We hold that it is and affirm.
I
These are the relevant record facts: On September 2, 1992, at
approximately 1:15 p.m., a 1982 brown Ford van crossed from Mexico
into the United States at the Hidalgo port of entry. The vehicle
was occupied by Glentsford Holland, an alien resident born in
Belize, Central America, and Jacqueline Hunt, an American citizen.
The agent working at the primary inspection area noted that Holland
appeared to be very nervous. The agent placed a referral slip on
the vehicle, requesting a canine inspection at the secondary
inspection area because he suspected that the van was carrying
drugs.
At the secondary inspection area, a canine immediately alerted
to the interior roof area of the van. An examination of the outer
roof of the van revealed that a section had been cut out,
recovered, and repainted. Holes were drilled in the van's top and

-- 2 of 8 --

-3-
a drill bit came out with pieces of duct tape having the odor of
marijuana. A white powdery substance, which tested positive for
cocaine, was discovered on another drill bit. The agents cut open
the roof and retrieved 49 packages of marijuana and five packages
of cocaine.
Burlington Card approached Holland in July 1992 about driving
a van from Chicago to Belize and back to Chicago. Card agreed to
pay Holland $10,000 for making the trip. Holland testified that he
believed that he was transporting marijuana because of the large
sum of money that he was being paid by Card. Card instructed
Holland to have the title to the van transferred to Holland's name
because Holland would not have a problem driving the van into
Mexican territory. Holland had previously seen Card driving the
van. Holland stated that a woman named Gladys transferred
ownership of the van to him, and he received a receipt showing a
payment of $1.00. Holland denied paying any money for the van and
claimed that Card paid the $40 transfer fee on the van.
Holland testified that he and Card left Chicago in the van on
June 22, 1992. The van was followed by a 1991 Nissan Pathfinder
occupied by Card's mother, brother, and a small child. Holland
stated that Card agreed to pay all expenses of the trip and that
Card purchased tires for the van during the trip. Holland claimed
that he did not have access to the van during their stay in Belize.
Holland was required to fly back to Chicago for a court appearance
while the group was in Belize, and Card paid his airfare for the

-- 3 of 8 --

-4-
trip. After they arrived in Belize, Card introduced Holland to
Jacqueline Hunt. On the date of their departure from Belize, one
of Card's friends picked up Holland, Hunt, and Carl Myvett.
Holland requested gasoline money from Card for the trip back.
Holland's group met with Card at Chetumal, Mexico. Card was
accompanied by his mother, brother, niece, and girlfriend.
According to Holland, Card instructed them that Hunt was to pose as
Holland's mother-in-law and was to drive the van over the bridge
into Hidalgo. Prior to leaving Mexico, the group removed
immigration stickers from the van so that the occupants could pose
as American citizens. Holland understood that Hunt was to be paid
$5000 for crossing the van. After the drugs were discovered in the
van, Hunt told agents that the drugs belonged to Card and that Card
had agreed to pay her $2000 for driving the van over the border.
The Nissan Pathfinder crossed the port of entry at Hidalgo at
about 2:30 p.m. and was placed under surveillance because it had
Illinois plates. An agent followed the vehicle to a shopping
center parking lot where it stopped. The agent observed Card
stepping out of the vehicle and the vehicle subsequently pulling
off. The agent testified that the port of entry and the secondary
inspection area can be viewed from the shopping center parking lot.
The Nissan was also occupied by another black male, two black
females, and a black child. Card was arrested later that evening.
Edwin Wellington, Card's half-brother, testified that Card
contacted him about making a vacation trip to Belize. Wellington

-- 4 of 8 --

-5-
left Chicago in his Nissan Pathfinder in late July 1992 accompanied
by his mother and daughter. Holland and Card accompanied them in
the van, which was driven by both men during the trip. Card had
agreed to pay all the expenses of the trip, but Wellington stated
that they ultimately split the costs. Card did not stay with his
family during their month-long stay in Belize, and Wellington did
not see the van during the vacation. Wellington testified that his
group met the van driven by Holland at Chetumal, and they traveled
together through Mexico.
Wellington testified that, after seeing Holland's van stopped
at the secondary inspection station, Card instructed them to deny
knowing Holland if they were stopped at the port of entry. Card
also instructed them to say that they had been in Mexico for a few
days.
II
On appeal, Card argues only that the evidence was insufficient
to support his convictions. He contends that the government failed
to prove that he was aware that there were drugs located in a
hidden compartment of the van during his temporary possession of
the vehicle. Card further argues that the evidence showed that he
was not the owner of the vehicle and failed to tie him into the
scheme to transport drugs.
In reviewing insufficiency-of-evidence claims, we determine
whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the
government proved each of the substantial elements of the offense

-- 5 of 8 --

-6-
beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415,
420 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 828 (1992) and cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 995 (1993). We "must examine the evidence and
all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light
most favorable to the jury verdict." U.S. v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d
1218, 1223 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1291 (1993)
(internal quotation and citation omitted).
To establish the guilt of a defendant in a drug conspiracy,
the government must prove that an agreement with an intent to
distribute existed, that the defendant and his co-conspirators each
had knowledge of the agreement, and that they voluntarily
participated in the conspiracy. U.S. v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d 1170,
1175 (5th Cir. 1993). "An agreement may be inferred from concert
of action, participation from a collocation of circumstances[,] and
knowledge from surrounding circumstances." Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted). "Mere presence at the scene and
close association with those involved are insufficient factors
alone; nevertheless, they are relevant factors for the jury." Id.
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
"To prove possession of a controlled substance with intent to
distribute, the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that
[the] defendant (1) possessed the illegal substance (2) knowingly
(3) with intent to distribute it." U.S. v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693,
701 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 388 (1992). An intent to

-- 6 of 8 --

-7-
distribute may be inferred if there is a large quantity of drugs
involved in a transaction. Ojebode, 957 F.2d at 1226.
"Knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance often may
be inferred from the exercise of control over a vehicle in which
the illegal substance is concealed." U.S. v. Diaz-Carreon, 915
F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). If the
controlled substance is found in a hidden compartment of the
vehicle, the government must produce "additional evidence
indicating knowledge -- circumstances evidencing a consciousness of
guilt on the part of the defendant." Id. "Possession may be
either actual or constructive." U.S. v. Smith, 930 F.2d 1081, 1085
(5th Cir. 1991). "Constructive possession" is defined as
"ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself or
dominion or control over the premises in which the contraband is
concealed." Id. (citations omitted). Importation requires proof
that the defendant played a role in bringing a controlled substance
from a foreign country into the United States. Rojas-Martinez, 968
F.2d at 420
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, a rational jury could have found that the government
proved the substantial elements of the charged offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. The evidence reflected that Card organized the
trip and acted in concert with Holland and other individuals to
transport a large quantity of drugs across the border into the
United States for the purpose of distribution. Card's knowledge of

-- 7 of 8 --

-8-
the presence of the drugs in the van was reflected by the evidence
that he offered to pay large sums of money to his co-conspirators
for making the trip and by his instructions to them to lie about
their relationships and activities if they were stopped at the port
of entry. Holland admitted that he was aware that he was importing
drugs into the United States. Card's guilt was further confirmed
by his brother's testimony that he instructed the group in the
Nissan to deny that they knew Holland and to lie about the
activities prior to being stopped.
III
For the reasons stated, the judgment of convictions of
Burlington Card is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 8 of 8 --