Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Sandoval HERNANDEZ, Adriana Teresa Sanchez Gutierrez, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-15
Citations: 111 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 03-11114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Sandoval HERNANDEZ, Adriana Teresa Sanchez Gutierrez, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Sandoval HERNANDEZ, Adriana Teresa Sanchez Gutierrez, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 03-11114.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 15, 2004.
Susan B. Cowger, Rick Calvert, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adam L. Seidel, LAw Office of Adam L. Seidel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nelson Sandoval Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals his conviction for conspiring to possess over five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, while Adriana Teresa Sanchez Gutierrez (Gutierrez) appeals her convictions for the same drug conspiracy and for conspiring to launder monetary instruments with the proceeds of the drug conspiracy. Gutierrez contends that the evidence was insufficient to support either of her convictions. After re viewing the record and the arguments of counsel, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gutierrez and Hernandez also contend that the district court erred in denying their challenge to the jury panel, which was made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Their conclusional assertion that the Government's proffered race-neutral reasons for striking minority jurors were pretextual is insufficient to overcome the deference given to the district court's decision to accept those explanations. See United States v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 991 (5th Cir.1990). The judgments of conviction are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.