United States v. Vasquez-Garcia

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50474
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRISCILLA VASQUEZ-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-1822-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Priscilla Vasquez-Garcia appeals her convictions for
importation of 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Vasquez-
Garcia argues that the evidence was not sufficient to show that
she had knowledge of the cocaine that was concealed in the air
filter space of her vehicle.
Although Vasquez moved for a judgment of acquittal at the
close of the Government’s case, the record does not reflect that
she renewed her motion at the close of all evidence. Therefore,

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-50474
-2-
the court must apply the stricter standard in determining the
sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Green, 293 F.3d
886, 895 (5th Cir. 2002). “[T]he court reviews the evidence only
to determine whether there has been a manifest miscarriage of
justice, which occurs only when the record is devoid of evidence
of guilt.” Id.
A conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute requires proof that the defendant
knowingly possessed cocaine with intent to distribute it. United
States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 1999). Conviction
of the offense of importation of cocaine requires proof that the
defendant played a role in bringing a quantity of cocaine into
the United States from a place outside the United States; the
defendant knew the substance was cocaine; and the defendant knew
the substance would enter the United States. United States v.
Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999). To establish either
the possession or importation offense, the Government must adduce
sufficient evidence of “guilty knowledge.” Id.
Generally, a jury may infer knowledge of the presence of
drugs from the defendant’s control of the vehicle in which the
drugs are found. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d
540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998). However, when drugs are hidden, the
court requires additional circumstantial evidence of guilty
knowledge. Id. Evidence of guilty knowledge may include
implausible or inconsistent statements, nervousness,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-50474
-3-
less-than-credible explanations, or reluctance to answer
questions. Id.; United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657,
661 (5th Cir. 2002). Possession of large amounts of drugs also
indicate knowledge of hidden contraband. United States v. Del
Aguila-Reyes, 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983). A juror could
infer that it would be unlikely that a drug smuggler would
entrust a large quantity of drugs to a person with no knowledge
of their presence. Id.
The record is not devoid of evidence of Vasquez’s guilt.
Vasquez gave inconsistent statements during her interviews with
the officers or totally evaded questions asked of her. Vasquez
was transporting drugs having a street value of $250,000 to
$300,000, indicating that she was a trusted courier. It was
highly implausible that a stranger in Juarez chose to smuggle the
drugs in Vasquez’s vehicle without knowledge of her identity or
intended destination.
A review of the record thus shows that it is not devoid of
evidence of Vasquez’s guilt and does not show that the guilty
verdict resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Green,
293 F.3d 886, 895 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --