United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51346
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTHA ALICIA RUBIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-639-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martha Alicia Rubio appeals her jury-trial convictions for
importation of and possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 960. Rubio
argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew that marijuana was
hidden in the furniture that she was transporting in her vehicle.
She contends that the evidence was, at best, in equipoise.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-51346
-2-
Although the jury may ordinarily infer the defendant’s
guilty knowledge from his control over a drug-laden vehicle, if
the drugs are contained in a hidden compartment, as in this case,
this court requires additional circumstantial evidence that
demonstrates guilty knowledge. United States v. Villarreal, 324
F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2003).
Rubio exhibited nervous behavior during the canine search of
her vehicle. Based on the actions of Rubio in this regard, the
jury could have reasonably inferred that Rubio was nervous
concerning the discovery of marijuana in the furniture. See
United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998).
Rubio’s statements to the federal agents were inconsistent with
the evidence presented at trial. Inconsistent statements also
provide evidence of guilty knowledge. United States v. Diaz-
Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, the
amount and value of the marijuana discovered in the furniture in
her possession supports the jury’s finding of guilty knowledge.
The jury could have rationally inferred that Rubio would not be
entrusted with such valuable cargo is she had not been a knowing
participant in a drug-smuggling scheme. Villarreal, 324 F.3d at
324.
The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a
rational jury to find that Rubio had knowledge of the marijuana
in her possession. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543. Accordingly,
Rubio’s convictions are AFFIRMED.