Filed: Nov. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40895 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VENUSTIANO GILBERT-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-01-CR-45-1 - November 13, 2002 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Venustiano Gilbert-Alvarez appeals his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilo
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40895 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VENUSTIANO GILBERT-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-01-CR-45-1 - November 13, 2002 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Venustiano Gilbert-Alvarez appeals his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilog..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40895
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VENUSTIANO GILBERT-ALVAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-01-CR-45-1
--------------------
November 13, 2002
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Venustiano Gilbert-Alvarez appeals his conviction for
possession with the intent to distribute more than 1,000
kilograms of marijuana. Gilbert-Alvarez’s sole contention is
that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew that
marijuana was hidden in his tractor-trailer. We have reviewed
the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the
evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Gilbert-
Alvarez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
Gourley,
168 F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir. 1999).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
AFFIRMED.