United States v. Martinez ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51392
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DIANA AZENETH MARTINEZ, also known as Diana Azenth Martinez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-03-CR-102-1-AML
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Diana Azeneth Martinez appeals from her conviction of
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and importation of
marijuana. It is undisputed that Martinez drove a pickup truck
into the United States from Mexico and that the authorities
discovered marijuana in a hidden compartment underneath the truck
bed.
Martinez contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support her conviction because the Government failed to prove that
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
she knew about the illicit cargo in the truck’s hidden compartment.
The jury could have inferred from testimony about Martinez’s
demeanor during her initial questioning and from her changing
accounts of events that she had knowledge of the contraband
secreted in the hidden compartment.1 Martinez’s challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence is unavailing.
Martinez also contends that the district court erred by
failing to give her proposed instruction regarding evidence of
nervousness. We review the refusal to give a defense-tendered
instruction for abuse of discretion.2 A district court may refuse
“to give a requested instruction which incorrectly states the law,
is without foundation in the evidence, or is stated elsewhere in
the instructions.”3 “A court commits reversible error where (1)
the requested instruction is substantially correct; (2) the
requested issue is not substantially covered in the charge; and (3)
the instruction concerns an important point in the trial so that
the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant’s ability
to effectively present a given defense.”4 Martinez has not
demonstrated that the district court erred.
AFFIRMED.
1
See United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2002).
3
United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1057 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting
United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1992)).
4
John, 309 F.3d at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2