UNITED STATES v. RANGEL (2020)

Adrian Rangel appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, contending that the Government presented insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew of the contraband that was found by Border Patrol agents concealed inside the altered battery of his car. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 446 (5th Cir. 2002). Viewing the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, we affirm. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Construed in the Government’s favor, the evidence sufficed to permit the jury to find that Rangel knew about the contraband hidden in his car’s battery. See United States v. Rodriguez, 553 F.3d 380, 389 (5th Cir. 2008). Rangel’s arguments to the contrary largely challenge the jury’s decision to believe the Government’s witnesses over his own exculpatory testimony and to weigh the evidence against him. We will not second-guess the jury’s weight and credibility determinations, however. See United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). Notably, the jury could reasonably find that Rangel’s exculpatory explanation for the presence of the drugs in his car was implausible. See United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 955 (5th Cir. 1990).

The jury’s construction of the evidence was reasonable, and its resulting decision to find Rangel guilty on each count was rational. See United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411, 422-23 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lopez-Urbina, 434 F.3d 750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.