eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2006-08

United States v. Martinez-Marin ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUVENAL MARTINEZ-MARIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-05-202)
Submitted:   August 9, 2006                 Decided:   August 31, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher C. Finch, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Rebeca H. Bellows, Assistant
United States Attorney, Michael B. Kades, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juvenal Martinez-Marin appeals his conviction after a
jury trial of one count of unlawfully transporting illegal aliens,
in violation of
    8 U.S.C. § 1324
    (a)(1)(A)(ii) (2000).                      On appeal,
Martinez-Marin argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain
his conviction.        We disagree and affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden.            United States v. Beidler,
    110 F.3d 1064
    ,
1067    (4th    Cir.    1997).   “[A]n    appellate   court’s      reversal       of   a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”                    United States
v. Jones,
    735 F.2d 785
    , 791 (4th Cir. 1984).              A jury’s verdict must
be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record
to support it.         Glasser v. United States,
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).
In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
and inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact    could    accept    as    adequate   and   sufficient      to    establish      a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.                   United States v.
Burgos,
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).                    In evaluating
the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility
of     the   witnesses     and     assume    that   the    jury        resolved    all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United
States v. Romer,
    148 F.3d 359
    , 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
- 2 -
The elements of a violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) are
“(1) the transporting or moving of an alien within the United
States, (2) that the alien was present in violation of law,
(3) that the defendant was aware of the alien’s status, and
(4) that the defendant acted willfully in furtherance of the
alien’s violation of the law.”        United States v. Barajas-Chavez,
    162 F.3d 1285
    , 1287 (10th Cir. 1999).           Martinez-Marin does not
contest   that   he   transported    aliens   who   were   in   the   country
illegally, or that he knew or acted with reckless disregard of the
fact that the aliens were in the country illegally.         He takes issue
only with the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the fourth
element--that he acted to help the aliens remain in the country
illegally.    Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to establish this element of the crime, and
therefore sustain the jury’s finding of guilt.
We therefore affirm Martinez-Marin’s conviction.                We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -