USA V. JAVIER PORTILLO, No. 17-50142 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-50142 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00858-W v. MEMORANDUM* JAVIER PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Javier Portillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Portillo contends that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). that Portillo knew about the cocaine hidden in his vehicle when he crossed the border. We review de novo, asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. DiazCardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2003). The government presented evidence that Portillo was the owner, driver, and sole occupant of a vehicle containing almost 50 pounds of cocaine in an elaborate non-factory compartment. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Portillo had knowledge of the cocaine hidden in his vehicle. See id. (“A jury can infer knowledge when an individual is the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. A jury can also infer knowledge from possession of a large quantity of drugs.” (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 17-50142
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.
