* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50770 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OCTAVIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-00-CR-133-2-F September 27, 2001 Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Octavi o Rodriguez appeals his convictions for aiding and abetting the importation and possession with intent to distribute of cocaine. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convicti ons because the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew of the cocaine concealed on the person of his codefendant and that he intended to import the cocaine from Mexico into the United States for distribution. He argues that the evidence gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of innocence as well as to a theory of guilt.

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant aided and abetted the possession of cocaine with the int ent to import and distribute it. S ee United States v. Williams , 985 F.2d 749, 753-54 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Velgar-Vivero , 8 F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 1993). The evide nce showed that Rodriguez and his codefendant passenger offered imp lausible and inconsistent statements to explain their trip to Mexico in RodriguezÂ’s car and the subsequent discovery of cocaine concealed on the person of the codefendant. The jury could infer RodriguezÂ’s guilty knowledge from these implausible explanations. S ee Uni ted States v. Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 954-55 (5th Cir. 1990). Witnesses testified to RodriguezÂ’s unusual demeanor during the Customs inspection and nervousness and evasiveness during subsequent questioning; such testimony provides further evidence from which guilty knowledge may be inferred. S ee United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).

A customs agent testi fied that the quantity of cocaine was consistent with an intent to distribute, and, in light of the evidence of RodriguezÂ’s guilty knowledge, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Rodriguez knowingly assisted in importing the cocaine from Mexico to the United States. S ee United States v. He rnandez-Palacios , 838 F.2d 1346, 1349 (5th Cir. 1988); V elgarVivero , 8 F.3d at 241. Although Rodriguez presented testimony supporting his theory of innocence, the jury was free to reject this testimony, as it is the sole province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence. U nited States v. Casilla , 20 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 1994). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the evidence gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to guilt and to innocence. S ee Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d at 543.

AFFIRMED.