United States v. Ochoa

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41401
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SONIA ANN OCHOA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-164-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a jury trial, Sonia Ann Ochoa was convicted of one
charge of importation of 35.52 kilograms of marijuana into the
United States from Mexico and one charge of possession of this
same amount of marijuana with intent to distribute. The district
court sentenced her to 27 months in prison and a three-year term
of supervised release. Ochoa now appeals her conviction.
Ochoa first argues that the evidence was insufficient to
prove the scienter element of the offenses of conviction. The
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-41401
-2-
standard of review for this issue is “whether any reasonable
trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
The evidence is sufficient to uphold Ochoa’s convictions.
Her incomplete and inconsistent statements to officers; her
strange behavior in relation to one officer; her somewhat
questionable explanation for the large sum of cash she was
carrying and her reason for crossing the border; and her lack of
concern and genuine surprise following the discovery of the
marijuana provide sufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s
conclusion that she knew of the marijuana that was concealed in
the backseat of the car she was driving. See United States v.
Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 472 n.3 (5th Cir. 1999).
Ochoa argues that the district court erred in admitting
hearsay testimony. Any such error was harmless. See United
States v. Wells, 262 F.3d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 2001); United States
v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852, 867 (5th Cir. 1999). Ochoa contends
that she was prejudiced when the district court admonished
defense counsel to sit down and be quiet when he was objecting to
the admission of this testimony. Ochoa has shown no error in the
district court judge’s attempts to control his courtroom
following defense counsel’s refusal to accept the judge’s adverse
ruling on this issue. See United States v. Adkins, 741 F.2d 744,
747 (5th Cir. 1984).
No. 02-41401
-3-
Ochoa also has shown no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s handling of her request to depose an unnamed Mexican
mechanic. Wells, 262 F.3d at 459. The district court offered a
reasonable compromise to the problems surrounding the proposed
deposition. Ochoa likewise has not shown that the district court
abused its broad discretion in relation to its ruling concerning
testimony about fingerprints, or lack thereof, on the contraband.
See United States v. James, 510 F.2d 546, 551 (5th Cir. 1975).
Finally, Ochoa has not shown that the district court erred
in denying her request that the jury be instructed on spoliation
of evidence. The record reflects that the Government did not act
in bad faith when it disposed of the crankshaft. See United
States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000). Rather, this
disposal was done pursuant to a routine policy. Moreover, Ochoa
was informed of the steps she would have to take to retrieve the
crankshaft, but she declined to do so.
Ochoa has shown no error on the part of the district court.
Accordingly, her conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.