United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
In the United States Court of Appeals
October 19, 2004
For the Fifth Circuit
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_________________________ Clerk
No. 03-50924
Summary Calendar
_________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
SANDRA TEJADA; LORENA PAZ AGUILAR,
Defendants - Appellants.
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-1988-1-DB
_________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sandra Tejada and Lorena Paz Aguilar challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions for
conspiracy and for possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance. They contend that the evidence is
insufficient to show that they were aware that approximately 4.9
kilograms of cocaine were hidden beneath the dashboard of a
borrowed vehicle that they presented at the Desert Haven, Texas,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Border Patrol checkpoint.
In light of the value of the cocaine, the fact that Tejada
and Aguilar lied to law enforcement officials about the extent of
their contact with the borrowed vehicle, their nervousness, and
their implausible vacation plans, a rational jury could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knew that
there was cocaine hidden inside their vehicle.1
Tejada and Aguilar also argue that the district court erred
by refusing to admit exculpatory hearsay testimony. We find no
clear error in the district court’s determination that the
trustworthiness of the out-of-court statement was not adequately
corroborated and no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision
to exclude the testimony.2
AFFIRMED.
1
See United States v. Runyon, 290 F.3d 223, 238 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888 (2002); United States v. Ramos-Garcia,
184 F.3d 463, 465-67 (5th Cir. 1999).
2
See United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1492 (5th Cir.
1995); United States v. L’Hoste, 640 F.2d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1981).
2