
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deamond Larocca MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40447
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 7, 2008.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Alonzo Ramos, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Deamond Larocca Mitchell appeals his conviction for transporting an alien unlawfully in the United States. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction insofar as it failed to establish that he knowingly transported, or attempted to transport, an undocumented alien.

Mitchell did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence. Therefore, our review of the sufficiency issue is “limited to determining whether ... the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882, 885 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc). The following evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Mitchell knew his trailer contained illegal aliens: (1) he parked his tractor-trailer in a dimly lit area where 18-wheel-er parking was prohibited; (2) he did not secure his trailer doors when he allegedly went to the bathroom in the theater and then went in search of body lotion; (3) his allegation that he went in search of lotion was not credible given that the shopping mall did not contain a Dollar General Store; (4) he was observed pacing back and forth behind the trailer and talking on a two-way radio that he purportedly found in his hotel room; (5) he had to physically enter the trailer around the very time the aliens were being loaded inside to perform the temperature checks; and (6) the three testifying aliens were independently led to his truck within a relatively short period of time, suggesting that Mitchell was knowingly involved in the offense. Consequently, the record contains indirect evidence pointing to his guilty knowledge.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     