USA v. Jose Alvarez-Ayala, No. 13-50099 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 6, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-50099 Summary Calendar FILED January 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE LUIS ALVAREZ-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-342-2 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Alvarez-Ayala (Alvarez) appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He claims that he was incompetent when he admitted transporting the drugs in exchange for $2500, noting the testimony of law enforcement agents that he appeared to be intoxicated or impaired in some way. He contends that the only nexus between him and the marijuana was an 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 No. 13-50099 admission, which was false. According to Alvarez, without the admission, there was insufficient evidence to establish that he possessed the marijuana. He asserts that his mere presence in the truck carrying 242 pounds of marijuana was insufficient, arguing that there was no forensic evidence linking him to drugs. We review Alvarez s sufficiency claim de novo. See United States v. Jimenez, 509 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir. 2007). In determining whether the evidence was sufficient, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Alvarez admitted that he was to be paid $2500 to transport the marijuana into the United States. Although initially he was mumbling and unsteady, looking like he just woke up, and acting as though he did not understand what was going on, Alvarez cleared up as he and border patrol agent Scott Morris started talking and having a discussion. Morris testified that Alvarez knew what he was doing and answered questions appropriately. They chitchatted and made small talk, and Alvarez seemed interested when discussing Morris s father s career as a truck driver. DEA agent Mark Ruckman testified that Alvarez understood the Miranda 1 warnings and appeared competent to waive his rights. Ruckman also testified that, when Alvarez started telling the truth, he perked up and convers[ed] like a normal person. During his own testimony, Alvarez did not state that he was too impaired to understand what was going on at the time of his admission. Instead, he testified that he was coerced into making the confession, a contention that he 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Case: 13-50099 Document: 00512489990 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 No. 13-50099 does not raise on appeal. enforcement contained Moreover, the story Alvarez provided to law multiple implausibilities and unexplained inconsistencies. The jury received evidence placing him inside the warehouse where the truck had been dismantled and the marijuana packaged. In addition, the jury heard testimony that Alvarez had gone on a trip with others in the truck to scout locations for crossing the border with a load of marijuana. Less than a week later, he was apprehended at the checkpoint in the same truck carrying more than 242 pounds of marijuana. Although Alvarez denied any involvement with the marijuana, [w]e will not second guess the jury in its choice of which witnesses to believe. United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1260 (5th Cir. 1994). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; United States v. Jimenez, 509 F.3d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 2007) (listing elements of the offense); United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 606 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding implausible and inconsistent stories support finding of guilty knowledge). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
