United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-50322 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDUARDO ROCHA-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-1663-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eduardo Rocha-Torres appeals from his jury-verdict
conviction for importation of marijuana. Rocha was arrested
after the vehicle he drove from Mexico into the United States
was found to contain a large amount of marijuana in a hidden
compartment.
Rocha argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to
prove the knowledge element of the crime of conviction. Looking
at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
discern many factors indicating that Rocha was aware that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-50322
-2-
vehicle he was driving contained illegal drugs, including the
fact that he provided conflicting statements to the authorities
regarding the details of his trip and the ownership of the
vehicle, he was paid three times his daily salary for the time
involved in making the trip, and the vehicle contained 80 pounds
of marijuana valued at $40,000 to $80,000. See United States
v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998). Rocha’s
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
knowledge element for the crime of conviction fails because the
evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict on that basis.
Rocha also challenges his conviction on the grounds that
the district court refused to give two of his requested jury
instructions. One of the requested instructions contained
language intended to balance the deliberate-ignorance instruction
and the other instructed that, to prove knowledge, it was
insufficient for the Government to show merely that Rocha
knew that he was involved in something illegal. Because the
instructions requested by Rocha were substantially covered by
the charge as a whole, the district court did not reversibly err
by abusing its discretion in refusing to give these requested
instructions. See United States v. Pankhurst, 118 F.3d 345, 350
(5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070,
1076 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Stouffer, 986 F.2d 916,
925 n.9 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.