United States v. Cardenas, No. 15-50125 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant was convicted of one count of fraudulently receiving and facilitating the 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 court concluded that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in instructing the jury regarding the section 554(a) violation; the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew that the exportation of ammunition to Mexico was contrary to the laws of the United States; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.
Download PDF
Case: 15-50125 Document: 00513347691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50125 Summary Calendar FILED January 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Luis Cardenas was convicted by a jury of one count of fraudulently receiving and facilitating the 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 terms of 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Cardenas argues that the district court should have instructed the jury that, to find him guilty of violations of § 554(a) (smuggling from the United States), it must find that he violated 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c) (control of arms exports and imports), with the specific intent to violate the Case: 15-50125 Document: 00513347691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 No. 15-50125 law. Because Cardenas did not make this argument in the district court, we review it only for plain error. See United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 305-06 (5th Cir. 2009). In United States v. Bernardino, 444 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2011), we determined that, to establish an offense under § 554(a), the Government is required to prove only that the defendant knew he was dealing with ammunition that was intended for export and that the exportation was illegal. We specifically rejected the argument that the jury charge should have included an instruction requiring the Government to prove both that the defendant knew that the ammunition was an item for which an export license was required and intended to export the weapons without the license. Bernardino, 444 F. App’x at 74. We followed Bernardino in the appeal by Cardenas’s brother and codefendant, see United States v. Cardenas, ___ F. App’x ___, No. 14-50906, 2015 WL 5451335, 1 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2015), and in United States v. Reyes, 559 F. App’x 274 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Bernardino, Reyes, and Cardenas are unpublished and non-controlling precedent, they are persuasive. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4; Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). We hold that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in instructing the jury. Cardenas also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions even if the court instructed the jury properly as to the elements of the offense. “[R]eviewing courts must affirm a conviction if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences 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.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 170 (2014). 2 Case: 15-50125 Document: 00513347691 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 No. 15-50125 Cardenas concedes that he stated that he believed that the ammunition was destined for Mexico. He also concedes that the evidence would allow a finding that he suspected that the exportation of ammunition was illegal or that he was acting in reckless disregard of whether his actions were illegal but asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he actually knew that the exportation of ammunition was illegal. This argument ignores that Cardenas stated to a law enforcement official that he knew exporting ammunition to Mexico was illegal. The fact that Cardenas also stated that he did not think he would get in trouble because he only drove the ammunition to San Antonio and that he thought there was little chance that much of the ammunition would make it to Mexico does not negate or undercut his statement regarding his knowledge of the illegality of exporting ammunition to Mexico. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardenas knew that the exportation of ammunition to Mexico was contrary to the laws of the United States. 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.
