Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10449 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICARDO A. GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-190-1-L - December 28, 1999 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ricardo A. Gonzalez appeals his jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately 200 kilograms
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10449 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICARDO A. GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-190-1-L - December 28, 1999 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ricardo A. Gonzalez appeals his jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately 200 kilograms o..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10449
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO A. GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-190-1-L
--------------------
December 28, 1999
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricardo A. Gonzalez appeals his jury conviction for
possession with intent to distribute approximately 200 kilograms
of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C).
Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the marijuana seized from his tractor-trailer.
Gonzalez does not dispute the validity of the stop of his
commercial tractor-trailer for inspection pursuant to Texas
statute. Nor does he dispute that the dog-sniff of the tractor-
trailer which caused the dog to alert, was probable cause to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-10449
-2-
search. Further, Gonzalez voluntarily consented to a search of
the trailer for narcotics and did not object to the search or to
moving the tractor-trailer at any time. Gonzalez’s only argument
is that the moving of the tractor-trailer from the Interstate
Highway where it was stopped to a warehouse at which it was
searched, a distance of five miles, was unreasonable. It was not
unreasonable for the officers to move the tractor-trailer from
the Interstate to a warehouse approximately five miles away to
conduct the search of the trailer as the watermelons had to be
unloaded. See United States v. Johns,
469 U.S. 478, 484 (1985).
The district court did not err in denying Gonzalez’s motion to
suppress the marijuana.
Gonzalez also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction. A rational trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Lopez,
74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). The Government admitted
Gonzalez’s logbook into evidence which had some unusual entries.
Texas State Trooper John Forrest testified that the logbook
showed that Gonzalez had taken an unusual amount of time off,
including several days in Miami and then over two days in El
Paso. The logbook stated that the load of watermelons was loaded
onto the trailer in New Mexico at 10:30 a.m. on September 17,
1998. The logbook also showed that Gonzalez drove the load for
only one and a half hours before stopping in Las Cruces, New
Mexico, for three and a half hours. Forrest testified that it
was unusual for Gonzalez to be driving on Interstate 20 because
No. 99-10449
-3-
the preferred route from Las Cruces, New Mexico, to New York
would have been Interstate 40. When Forrest first stopped the
tractor-trailer, he observed that Gonzalez had his head in his
hands. Two witnesses from Waterloo Produce, James Keeler and
Enrique Mata, testified that the watermelons had been stacked
into the back of the trailer in rows like cord wood. However,
Forrest testified that when he opened the trailer, he observed a
pile of watermelons in the back part of the trailer and that many
of the watermelons were broken. Keeler and Mata testified that
the trailer was inspected before loadings and that no one from
Waterloo could have loaded marijuana onto the trailer. Keeler
also testified that Gonzalez told the loaders not to put any more
watermelons on the trailer even though the trailer was more than
2000 pounds under the weight limits. When Forrest asked Gonzalez
to look at the pile of broken watermelons, Gonzalez’s reaction
was unusual in that he was not upset at the way the watermelons
had been loaded. The above evidence indicates that a rational
trier of fact could have found that Gonzalez had knowledge that
the trailer contained marijuana, and, therefore, the evidence was
sufficient to support Gonzalez’s conviction for possession of
marijuana with intent to distribute.
AFFIRMED.