* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51285

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARCIAL MENDOZA-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-737-ALL

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcial Mendoza-Mendoza (Mendoza) was convicted by a jury of one count

of importation of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute and was sentenced to concurrent 121-month terms of imprisonment.

Mendoza, who was entering the United States, was stopped as he drove a vehicle

into an inspection station on a bridge at Eagle Pass, Texas. Law enforcement

agents discovered bundles of cocaine in a hidden compartment of Mendoza’s

vehicle.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51285

2

Mendoza argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions. He contends that the Government did not meet its burden to prove

that he knowingly possessed the cocaine concealed in the hidden compartment

of the vehicle. 

The jury heard evidence that Mendoza made false and inconsistent

statements to federal agents he encountered when his vehicle was stopped.

Mendoza told agents that he had made only two previous crossings from Mexico

in his vehicle and that he was crossing the bridge pursuant to an attempt to sell

his vehicle to a man named Carlos. However, when confronted with information

thatthe vehicle had made several previous crossings, Mendoza changed his story

and told agents that Carlos had attempted to recruit him to cross illegal drugs

into the United States. Mendoza also admitted that he expected to be paid

$3,000 for driving the vehicle into the United States. In view of Mendoza’s false

and inconsistent statements, and considering the reasonable inferences drawn

from the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of

fact could have found that the evidence established the elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Cuellar, 478 F.3d 282, 295 (5th

Cir. 2007) (en banc); United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir.

1990). 

Mendoza also argues that the district court erred by allowing a federal

agent to testify that he had seen other vehicles that contained contraband that

had cracks in their windshields similar to a crack on Mendoza’s vehicle.

Mendoza contends that the testimony regarding the agent’s experiences with

vehicles that had cracked windshields constitutes evidence that he fitthe profile

of a drug courier. 

Drug-courier profiles “have long been recognized as inherently prejudicial

because of the potential they have for including innocent citizens as profiled

drug couriers” and therefore are not admissible as substantive evidence of the

defendant’s guilt. United States v. Williams, 957 F.2d 1238, 1242 (5th Cir.
No. 06-51285

3

1992). Here, however, the challenged testimony served only as background

information regarding the decision of the federal agent to refer the vehicle to

secondary inspection, rather than as substantive evidence that Mendoza was

guilty of the charged offenses. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in allowing the challenged testimony. See id. at 1241-42. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.