United States v. Herrera-Hernandez ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 2 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-2180
(D. New Mexico)
JOSE ASCENCION HERRERA- (D.Ct. No. CR-01-963-LH)
HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Jose Herrera-Hernandez was found guilty by a jury of transporting illegal
aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(i), and
(a)(1)(A)(v)(II). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
judgment of acquittal, claiming there was insufficient proof that he knew of, or
recklessly disregarded, the fact that his passengers were in the United States
illegally. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Background
We present the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the
Government. In April 2001, Deputy Sheriff Sean Pruitt saw a van stop at the
intersection of Sumner Avenue and Fourth Street in Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
The intersection had no stop sign and two vehicles behind the van were forced to
stop suddenly. The van bore a Texas license plate, its rear doors were held shut
with a bungee cord and the brake light above the doors was missing. Pruitt turned
on his emergency lights and stopped the van.
Pruitt asked Herrera-Hernandez, the driver, to produce a driver’s license
and vehicle registration. While waiting for the documents, Pruitt saw passengers
in the van. After calling in the registration and driver’s license number, Pruitt
learned that Herrera-Hernandez’s driver’s license had been suspended and the
insurance on the van was expired. When Pruitt asked the passengers for
identification, he received no response. Pruitt told Herrera-Hernandez to follow
-2-
him to the sheriff’s department, where Pruitt called the U.S. Border Patrol.
Several hours later, border patrol agents Ochoa and Harrison arrived at the
sheriff’s department from their office in Carlsbad, New Mexico, approximately
180 miles away. When they arrived, Herrera-Hernandez agreed to answer their
questions. Herrera-Hernandez said he was transporting the passengers for his
brother’s business. He said he would help the agents investigate other companies
who transported illegal aliens from Houston, but would not provide information
about his brother’s organization. When Agent Harrison then asked him if he
knew the people in the van were illegal aliens, Herrera-Hernandez gestured and
said, “yeah.” Herrera-Hernandez denies this occurred.
On July 24, 2001, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against
Herrera-Hernandez for transporting illegal aliens. At trial, the jury returned a
verdict of guilty on both counts and Herrera-Hernandez moved for a judgment of
acquittal. The district court denied his motion and sentenced Herrera-Hernandez
to thirty months imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.
Discussion
We review insufficiency of the evidence claims de novo. United States v.
Van Tieu, 279 F.3d 917, 921-22 (10th Cir. 2002). We review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government to determine whether a rational jury could
have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We will not
-3-
weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we consider the credibility of the witnesses.
Id. All conflicts are resolved in favor of the Government. Id.The Government is required to prove: “(1) the transporting or moving of an
alien within the United States, (2) that the alien was present in violation of the
law, (3) that [Herrera-Hernandez] was aware of the alien’s status, and (4) that
[Herrera-Hernandez] acted willfully in furtherance of the alien’s violation of the
law.” United States v. Barajas-Chavez, 162 F.3d 1285, 1287 (10th Cir.) (en banc)
(quoting United States v. Diaz, 936 F.2d 786, 788 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
528 U.S. 826 (1999). Herrera-Hernandez claims the Government did not offer
adequate proof that he knew the people in the van were illegal aliens. Although
Herrera-Hernandez admits Harrison testified that Herrera-Hernandez confessed to
knowledge of the passengers’ status by gesturing and saying “yeah,” he claims
that, even if he made the gesture and comment, the response was made during
interrogation when he was not under oath. Because his testimony at trial denying
knowledge was under oath, he claims it should be given greater weight. This
argument is without merit.
The jury heard evidence that Herrera-Hernandez admitted he knew he was
transporting illegal aliens. Even though there was testimony to the contrary, the
jury obviously believed the agent. As we do not determine the credibility of the
witnesses or the weight of the evidence, this fact alone is sufficient proof of
-4-
Herrera-Hernandez’s knowledge.
The denial of the motion for acquittal is AFFIRMED.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-5-