United States v. Luis Cardenas, 810 F.3d 373

Luis Cardenas was convicted by a jury of one count of fraudulently receiving and facilitating transportation, concealment, and sale of ammunition prior to exportation, and one count of attempted exportation of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a).
The district court sentenced Cardenas to two concurrent 72-month prison terms and three years supervised release.
On appeal, Cardenas argued the jury should have been instructed that guilt under § 554(a) requires proof he violated 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c) with specific intent to violate that law.
The panel reviewed that instructional claim for plain error because Cardenas did not raise it below.
Cardenas also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, conceding he believed the ammunition was destined for Mexico but contending the Government did not prove he actually knew exporting ammunition to Mexico was illegal.
The record included statements by Cardenas to law enforcement admitting he knew exporting ammunition to Mexico was illegal; the court found this sufficient to support the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 554(a) conviction requires jury instruction that defendant knowingly violated 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c) with specific intent	Cardenas: jury must be instructed that he intended to violate § 2778(c)	Government: proof only requires knowledge ammunition was for export and that exportation was illegal	No plain error; instruction was sufficient — Government's standard controls
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Cardenas knew exporting ammunition to Mexico was illegal	Cardenas: at most recklessness or suspicion, not actual knowledge	Government: Cardenas admitted to law enforcement he knew export to Mexico was illegal	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed

United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review when issue not raised below)
United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished decisions can be persuasive under local rules)