UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11162
3:97-CR-408-12-P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO MANUEL GARCIA-GONZALEZ, also known as Tito,
also known as Alberto Lnu; OLGA BENITEZ
also known as Olga Osorio,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
December 13, 1999
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Garcia-Gonzalez and Benitez challenge various aspects of
their convictions for marijuana trafficking. Having reviewed the
briefs and carefully considered the arguments of counsel and
pertinent portions of the record, we affirm in all respects.
Both appellants argue that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting the testimony of Agent Marshall as to the
meaning of drug “code” words. We find no abuse of discretion.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States v. Griffith, 118 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 1997). Given the
agent’s professional background and experience, and the helpfulness
to the jury of his identification of drug traffickers’ code
language, the court did not err in admitting his testimony.
There is sufficient evidence to support Garcia’s
conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate a drug trafficking
offense. The appellant’s conversation with Benitez, when taken in
context with other evidence in the record, showed that he was
supplying her money to acquire marijuana and that, within a couple
of days, he did acquire marijuana for resale through her efforts.
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Benitez’s instruction concerning duress as a defense. Benitez did
not establish a fact issue concerning two of the requirements for
that duress, in that she demonstrated neither a “present, imminent,
and impending threat of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily injury,” nor that she had
no “reasonable legal alternative” to violating the law. United
States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, at 873 (5th Cir. 1998).
Finally, there is no merit to Benitez’s challenge to her
offense level for sentencing purposes. The district court did not
clearly err in calculating the amount of marijuana attributable to
her, and it properly enhanced her offense level for possession of
a firearm, for obstruction of justice based on perjured trial
testimony, and for her managerial role in the drug conspiracy.
AFFIRMED.
2