United States v. Horta

*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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
February 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
STEPHANIE H. HORTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:04-CR-114)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Stephanie Horta (“Horta”) was charged with one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). A jury convicted Horta on that count and she was

-- 1 of 4 --

2
sentenced to seventy-two months in prison. Horta timely appealed and argues
several points of error: (1) the district court erred in admitting Horta’s post-
arrest statements, (2) it erred in its rulings on several evidentiary issues, and
(3) it erred by giving a “deliberate ignorance” jury instruction. For the reasons
stated below, we affirm.
In December 2003, undercover DEA agents met prospective cocaine
buyers from Boston and Rhode Island in an east Fort Worth warehouse, where
the prospective buyers were arrested as they attempted to purchase cocaine.
Before the arrests, and while waiting for the promised cocaine to arrive, one
prospective buyer, Victor Ortiz, called Horta and gave her directions to the
warehouse. Ortiz explained to the others at the warehouse that “he was going
to have a female drive the cocaine back to where they came from.” Shortly
thereafter agents observed Horta driving near the warehouse and they stopped
and arrested her in a nearby parking lot. Horta concedes that she was
Mirandized upon her arrest. She was then transported to a DEA office and
briefly questioned about her involvement. Following the interview, which lasted
about fifteen minutes, she was released without being charged. During the
interview Horta allegedly admitted that she owned a minivan used during the
conspiracy.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
In July 2004, a grand jury in the Northern District of Texas returned an
indictment charging Horta, along with the prospective cocaine buyers, as
conspirators in the attempted drug transaction. Upon learning that a warrant
had been issued for her arrest, Horta surrendered to authorities. Prior to trial,
Horta sought to suppress her post-arrest statement to police regarding the
minivan. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Horta made
the statement voluntarily and denied the motion.
At trial the prosecution elicited testimony from, among others, Mark Sorel,
the Lakeville, Massachusetts police chief. He testified that he knew Horta
because he frequented the restaurant where she worked, and that she came
to him to inquire about a warrant. He also testified, over a hearsay objection,
that Horta told him she had been offered a substantial sum of money to drive
a vehicle to Texas, and that she figured it was illegal but “didn’t know the
details.” The district court did not allow Horta to cross examine Sorel
concerning prior alleged drug use and dishonesty from more than twenty years
prior. Over Horta’s objection, the prosecution also introduced transcripts of
phone conversations between undercover agents and several of Horta’s co-
conspirators to establish the existence of the conspiracy.
On appeal Horta seeks a new trial because of the evidentiary errors she

-- 3 of 4 --

4
alleges occurred below, and because she contends that a deliberate ignorance
jury instruction was inappropriate. After examining the briefs and the record,
and after hearing oral argument, we find no error under the applicable
standards of review. Accordingly we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --