USA v. Claudia Martinez, No. 15-40467 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40467 Document: 00513354603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40467 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 25, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CLAUDIA MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-1068 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Claudia Martinez appeals the district court’s decision revoking her supervised release which followed her conviction for transporting illegal aliens for private financial gain. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). Martinez pleaded true to associating with a felon; however, she denied committing the new law violation of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana (and conspiracy to do so), or associating 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-40467 Document: 00513354603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 No. 15-40467 with a person engaged in criminal activity. She argues on appeal that the evidence failed to establish that she knew of the marijuana hidden in the spare tire of the vehicle driven by her to the border patrol checkpoint. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Arbizu, 431 F.3d 469, 470 (5th Cir. 2005). Martinez’s nervousness at the border patrol checkpoint is circumstantial evidence of her guilty knowledge. See United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 1999). The inconsistency in her statements during questioning also is circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge. See United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 489-90 (5th Cir. 2008). Martinez’s contention that the district court should not have considered her prior smuggling conviction in making its revocation decision is without merit. See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that revocation hearings are not part of the criminal prosecution and are not formal trials); see also § 3583(e) (noting that a district court may revoke supervised release after considering the factors set forth in section 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)). Contrary to Martinez’s assertion, the core facts of the prior smuggling attempt were substantially similar to the facts advanced by the Government in the instant proceedings. In sum, Martinez has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that it was more likely than not that she participated in the marijuana-possession offense and associated with a person engaged in illegal activity. See Hinson, 429 F.3d at 118-19; Arbizu, 431 F.3d at 470. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
