United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
July 27, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50764
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LICETTE ANEL LECHUGA,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1913-1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Licette Anel Lechuga appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to import and importation
of more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew that the vehicle she was driving contained
methamphetamine hidden in a secret compartment in the gas tank. She also argues that the evidence
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
was insufficient to establish that she was aware of and agreed to join and participate in a conspiracy
to import methamphetamine.
Because Lechuga moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case,
which motion she renewed at the close of all of the evidence, the standard of review in assessing her
sufficiency challenge is whether a “reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United
States v. Uvalle-Patricio, 478 F.3d 699, 701 (5th Cir. 2007). “[T]he evidence . . . must be
considered in the light most favorable to the government, giving the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices.” United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 724 (5th Cir.
1994).
A review of the record indicates that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the
evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lechuga knew that the methamphetamine was
hidden in the vehicle and therefore that she conspired to import and imported 12.3 pounds of
methamphetamine. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Uvalle-Patricio, 478 F.3d at 701. A jury could
have inferred Lechuga’s knowledge that the methamphetamine was hidden in the vehicle from the
following evidence: her nervousness and talkative demeanor when stopped at the border; her
inconsistent statements concerning the purchase and registration of the car; and her implausible
explanation of her actions. Further evidence of Lechuga’s knowledge of the methamphetamine
includes Rodriguez’s testimony that: Lechuga promised Rodriguez would be paid $2000 to take the
trip; after Rodriguez refused to register the car in Rodriguez’s name, Lechuga agreed to register the
car in Lechuga’s name; and Lechuga attempted to obtain identification indicating that she lived in
Colorado even though she actually lived in Aurora, Illinois. The jury heard Lechuga’s testimony
-2-
concerning her version of the events and alleging that Rodriguez and several agents lied; the jury
determined that her testimony was not credible and rejected it. The jury could also reasonably have
inferred that Lechuga would not have been entrusted with transporting such a large, valuable quantity
of methamphetamine if she did not know that she was transporting illegal drugs. See United States
v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 2003) (over 600 pounds of hidden marijuana); United
States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451, 455 (5th Cir. 2001) (more than 300 pounds of hidden
marijuana); United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999) (70 pounds of
hidden marijuana). Based on Lechuga’s nervous and talkative demeanor at the border, her
implausible explanations of her actions, her inconsistent statements, Rodriguez’s testimony, and the
value of the hidden methamphetamine, a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence was
sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew there were illegal drugs hidden in the
vehicle when she attempted to cross the border into the United States. See United States v. Ortega
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Lechuga’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
-3-