United States v. Vasquez
677 F.3d 685
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Vasquez was stopped at the Lincoln-Juarez Bridge after CBP detected anomalies in his Suburban's electrical system and concealed packages under two car-battery casings.
- Six bundles of cocaine (total 10.25 kg) were hidden inside motorcycle battery casings connected to the vehicle’s electrical system.
- A sales contract showed Vasquez bought the Suburban; another man accompanied him and spoke to the dealer, raising inference of a larger conspiracy.
- ICE and CBP testimony established the cocaine’s substantial street value across several markets; experts quantified weight and value.
- Vasquez denied ownership of the vehicle, later admitted ownership under questioning, and investigators noted his nervous demeanor and evasive answers.
- The district court denied acquittal and the jury convicted Vasquez on three counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and importation of cocaine; he received three concurrent 125-month terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts I–III | Vasquez challenges whether the government proved knowledge and participation. | Vasquez argues evidence is insufficient to prove guilty knowledge and involvement. | Sufficient evidence supported all three convictions. |
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction | Government instruction could be applied to conspiracy context. | No evidence of another participant; instruction improper. | No abuse of discretion; instruction proper given potential for co-conspirator involvement. |
| Deliberate-ignorance instruction | N/A | Deliberate-ignorance instruction should not misstate knowledge. | Instruction properly stated law and was supported by evidence. |
| Prosecutorial statements at closing | Two remarks alleged to be improper closing statements. | Statements were not plainly erroneous when viewed in context. | No plain-error reversal; comments did not prejudice trial. |
| Sentence reasonableness | Challenge to within-Guidelines sentence as excessive. | Unclear basis to depart from presumption of reasonable within-Guidelines sentence. | Sentence within Guidelines; presumed reasonable, no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. United States, 887 F.2d 62 (5th Cir.1989) (circumstantial evidence may establish guilt; common sense governs)
- Betancourt v. United States, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2009) (review of jury instructions for abuse of discretion; plain error standard)
- Lara-Velasquez v. United States, 919 F.2d 946 (5th Cir.1990) (instructions must be accurate and factually supported)
- Threadgill v. United States, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.1999) (deliberate ignorance instruction需 subjectively aware; required for proper use)
- Mondragon-Santiago v. United States, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.2009) (reasonableness review after Booker: two-stage analysis)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 660 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.2011) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521 (5th Cir.1995) (standards for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2009) (plain-error standard in reviewing trial errors)
- United States v. Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d 121 (5th Cir.2003) (deliberate ignorance framework and inferences)
- United States v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir.1992) (deliberate ignorance guidance)