Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0287-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra TEJADA; Lorena Paz Aguilar, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 03-50924.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 19, 2004.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Angela S. Raba, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert R. Harris, Eduardo Solis, El Paso, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
    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, 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.

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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
     
      
      . See United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888, 123 S.Ct. 137, 154 L.Ed.2d 149 (2002); United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463, 465-67 (5th Cir.1999).
     
      
      . 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).