United States v. Araceli Garcia ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 17-40175   Document: 00514358115        Page: 1   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-40175                  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                         February 22, 2018
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Plaintiff - Appellee                                        Clerk
    v.
    ARACELI GARCIA,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
    A jury convicted Araceli Garcia of bringing unlawful aliens into the
    United States for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial
    gain, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Garcia appeals her conviction,
    arguing only that the Government failed to prove that she acted with the
    requisite financial purpose. We conclude, however, that the totality of the
    evidence allowed the jury to reasonably infer such a purpose. Garcia’s
    conviction is affirmed.
    I.      BACKGROUND
    On May 13, 2016, a Cadillac Escalade travelled from Mexico and arrived
    at the Lincoln-Juarez Bridge, which serves as a port of entry into the United
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    States by way of Laredo, Texas. Araceli Garcia (the owner of the vehicle) sat in
    the passenger’s seat, her 17-year-old daughter was the driver, and five or six
    other children occupied the vehicle’s remaining seats.
    United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Andrew Lewinski
    approached the vehicle, and Garcia informed him that the vehicle was
    overheating. Yet, Lewinski observed that the vehicle’s air conditioning was
    running full blast, no warning lights appeared on the dash, and none of the
    vehicle’s occupants were sweating. As for the group’s itinerary, Garcia
    explained that her daughter and grandchildren drove from Houston toward
    Monterrey to visit family, but upon discovering that the Monterrey relatives
    were not home, the family turned around to stay with other relatives in Laredo.
    This explanation was dubious, too, given the vehicle’s lack of luggage.
    Lewinski then collected identification documents (birth certificates,
    passports, etc.) from each person in the vehicle, and he began to read aloud the
    names to match the documents to the passengers. Two of the child passengers
    responded to names found on a pair of Texas birth certificates: Stephanie Soto
    and Adrian Soto. But a brief investigation called into question the validity of
    those identities; neither child spoke English, and “Stephanie” misspelled the
    name on her purported birth certificate. Ultimately, officers discovered that
    “Stephanie” was in reality D.I.P.M. and “Adrian” was M.G.M.—both Mexican
    siblings and both without prior permission to come into the United States.
    A grand jury indicted Garcia on two counts of bringing unlawful aliens
    into the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage or private
    financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). At trial, several
    officers explained the factual circumstances of the offense. And, importantly,
    D.I.P.M. herself shed further light on the smuggling endeavor. D.I.P.M.
    confirmed that arrangements were in place to smuggle her and her brother
    into the United States and that Garcia was the person designated to do so.
    2
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115     Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    D.I.P.M. was not related to Garcia and had never seen her before meeting for
    the first time in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. There, Garcia supplied the children
    with the birth certificates and other biographical information to corroborate
    the false identities. The group’s ultimate goal was to cross into Laredo and
    travel to Garcia’s home in Houston. D.I.P.M. and M.G.M. had been living apart
    from their mother (a New York resident), the logical inference being that the
    smuggling attempt was meant to reunite the family.
    When asked whether Garcia “was going to be paid money in order to have
    [the children] smuggled into the United States,” D.I.P.M. testified: “I only
    know that she was going to [be] paid the expenses that we would have on the
    journey.” D.I.P.M. learned of this payment from her mother but did not know
    how much money it entailed.
    After the Government rested, Garcia moved for acquittal under Federal
    Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district court denied the motion, the
    defense rested without calling a witness, and the jury convicted Garcia on both
    counts. Because the statute of conviction carries a three-year mandatory
    minimum, the district court sentenced Garcia on each count to three years’
    imprisonment with a three-year term of supervised release, each sentence to
    run concurrently. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B). Garcia appealed, challenging only
    the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to whether she acted “for the
    purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”
    II.   STANDARD OF REVIEW
    In reviewing Garcia’s preserved legal-sufficiency challenge, we must
    affirm her conviction “if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable
    inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
    fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
    doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 
    747 F.3d 299
    , 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en
    banc) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979)). At the same time,
    3
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115        Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    we remain obligated to evaluate “whether the inferences drawn by a jury were
    rational, as opposed to being speculative or insupportable, and whether the
    evidence is sufficient to establish every element of the crime.” 
    Id. at 302.
                                 III.    DISCUSSION
    Because Garcia does not dispute that she knowingly brought unlawful
    aliens into the United States, this appeal tasks us with evaluating only the
    proof of Garcia’s financial purpose. In doing so, we must first articulate what
    “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain” really
    means. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Despite a healthy stream of (mostly
    unpublished) smuggling cases, this circuit has yet to define the phrase. Indeed,
    that silence is entirely unsurprising given that nearly every one of those cases
    involved direct proof of an actual or expected lump-sum payment to either the
    defendant or the defendant’s smuggling network. See, e.g., United States v.
    Durant, 167 F. App’x 369, 370 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (affirming conviction
    when unlawful aliens found in defendant’s trailer “had agreed to pay between
    $1,000 and $1,200 upon their arrival in Houston”). When the Government
    adduced proof of such payments, it mattered not what the precise contours of
    the definition entailed because the smuggler’s prospect of financial gain was
    readily apparent.
    But in this case, the breadth of the financial-purpose element matters
    insofar as it affects the trajectory of our analysis. If proof of any expected
    payment suffices, then this case is open and shut—D.I.P.M. testified flatly that
    Garcia was to be paid expenses for their journey. If, however, the monetary
    expectation must be of a more profit-based character (as Garcia suggests), then
    this case becomes less straightforward because the Government did not offer
    direct proof of expected payment beyond that of a pure reimbursement. In turn,
    Garcia’s conviction would stand or fall on the Government’s circumstantial
    evidence and the rational inferences therefrom.
    4
    Case: 17-40175     Document: 00514358115        Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    A.    “Commercial Advantage” and “Private Financial Gain”
    We are not without guidance in defining the terms “commercial
    advantage” and “private financial gain” in the context of this statute. In United
    States v. Zheng, 
    306 F.3d 1080
    , 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), the Eleventh Circuit
    took up the task and concluded that the meanings of those terms are “hardly
    arcane.” Because Congress left those terms undefined in the smuggling
    statute, the Zheng court looked to “other sources and common sense” in giving
    the terms their “ordinary or natural meaning.” 
    Id. (citations omitted).
    And, as
    a result, the court defined “commercial advantage” as “a profit or gain in money
    obtained through business activity” and defined “private financial gain” as “an
    additional profit specifically for a particular person or group.” 
    Id. at 1086
    (quoting WEBSTER’S NEW INT’L DICTIONARY (3d ed. 1986)); see also MERRIAM
    WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2002) (defining the relevant
    terms in a nearly identical manner). 1 Garcia suggests we follow in Zheng’s
    footsteps.
    We agree, and we now adopt the essence of the Zheng court’s definition
    of the financial-purpose element: the defendant must seek to profit or
    otherwise secure some economic benefit from her smuggling endeavor. 
    See 306 F.3d at 1085
    –86. But what does that mean as a practical matter? Relevant to
    this case, it means that the Government must prove an anticipated gain
    beyond that of a pure reimbursement. A smuggler who seeks only her incurred
    smuggling costs seeks no economic benefit at all—she simply aims to maintain
    her financial status quo of zero dollars spent. 2
    1 The Second Circuit, too, has defined the phrase “commercial advantage” in largely
    the same way. See United States v. Kim, 
    193 F.3d 567
    , 577 (2d Cir. 1999).
    2  The Government cites United States v. Puac-Zamora, 
    56 F.3d 1385
    , 1385 n.3 (5th
    Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (unpublished), for the proposition that a reimbursement can
    constitute financial gain when the smuggler was already “traveling to [the intended
    destination] with or without the illegal alien passengers” because, in that scenario, the
    5
    Case: 17-40175      Document: 00514358115        Page: 6    Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    However, this is not at all to say that financial gain must necessarily
    take the form of cash placed directly in the smuggler’s pocket. One could
    conceive of plenty of circumstances in which a smuggler hopes to secure a less
    traditional (but equally pecuniary) benefit. See, e.g., United States v. Fujii, 
    301 F.3d 535
    , 540 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding the “pecuniary motive” element satisfied
    when the smuggler acted to satisfy a pre-existing debt). Resolving this case
    does not require us to hypothesize the outermost edges of the financial-purpose
    universe.
    The Government offers little resistance to the benefit-centric definition
    we outline above. Instead, the Government simply contrasts Zheng’s definition
    with a statutory definition found in the context of another crime. Specifically,
    the Government cites 18 U.S.C. § 2320, which criminalizes trafficking
    counterfeit goods “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
    gain” and defines “financial gain” as “includ[ing] the receipt, or expected
    receipt, of anything of value”—a definition the Government presumably views
    as more expansive. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(f)(2). But the Government’s citation
    appears without elaboration. The Government does not demonstrate why we
    should use a definition specific to another crime to interpret a phrase Congress
    left undefined in the statute before us. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
    Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 172–73 (2012) (explaining that,
    without more, “[t]he mere fact that the [same] words are used in each instance
    is not a sufficient reason for treating a decision on the meaning of the words of
    one statute as authoritative on the construction of another statute”) (citation
    omitted). And, more fundamentally, the Government fails to explain why the
    “reimbursement” is actually money gained. We do not question Puac-Zamora’s logic. Our
    resolution of this appeal, however, is based on other evidence and does not require us to
    decide if Garcia's itinerary testimony would be sufficient to support the conviction even
    though the Government tried the case on the theory that this testimony was false.
    6
    Case: 17-40175     Document: 00514358115   Page: 7   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    phrase “expected receipt, of anything of value” is meaningfully different from
    the definition we adopt. “Value,” after all, is “the monetary worth of
    something.” Value, MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed.
    2002). When someone performs a service and expects in return only a
    reimbursement for incurred costs, she has not acted for the purpose of
    receiving anything of worth—she expects, on balance, to receive no “value” at
    all for her services.
    Therefore, whichever terminology we employ, the inescapable definitions
    of “commercial advantage” and “financial gain” relate to a pecuniary benefit:
    the goal of improving one’s economic status in one way or another. It is to that
    standard we must now hold the Government.
    B.    Inferring Financial Purpose from the Evidence
    Now that we have clarified the financial-purpose element, Garcia
    suggests we can stop here. In other words, because pure reimbursements do
    not qualify, and because the Government’s testimony indicated only a promise
    to reimburse, Garcia argues the record contains no evidence of a profit-based
    motive. Given our preceding analysis, we agree with Garcia that D.I.P.M.’s
    testimony about travel expenses does not, by itself, satisfy the Government’s
    burden. But we disagree with Garcia’s suggestion that the jury could not
    reasonably infer financial purpose from the quantum of the Government’s
    circumstantial proof.
    First, we bear in mind that the statute does not confine itself to
    smuggling that results in actual commercial advantage or financial gain; it
    criminalizes smuggling undertaken “for the purpose” of such gains. 8 U.S.C.
    § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, the financial-purpose element is of a prospective,
    intent-based character. See United States v. Bailey, 
    444 U.S. 394
    , 405 (1980)
    (“‘[P]urpose’ corresponds loosely with the common-law concept of specific
    intent.”). And, a defendant’s “mental state is almost always proved by
    7
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115     Page: 8   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    circumstantial evidence from which the jury must infer guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt.” United States v. Giraldi, 
    86 F.3d 1368
    , 1374 (5th Cir. 1996).
    The question becomes: what kind of circumstantial evidence must we
    require? The very best circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s purpose is, of
    course, testimony that the defendant (1) planned to achieve some result or
    (2) in fact secured some objective—in terms of this case, testimony of an
    agreement to pay or an actual payment. But our jurisprudence simply does not
    require such evidence for a jury to draw the necessary inference.
    Take, by way of analogy, a prosecution for possession of drugs with intent
    to distribute. There, the best evidence of intent is naturally an agreement to
    distribute or evidence of the distribution itself. See United States v. Chapman,
    
    851 F.3d 363
    , 379 (5th Cir. 2017) (inferring intent to distribute from evidence
    “that [the defendant] himself distributed drugs to buyers”). But we
    nevertheless allow a jury to draw the inference from other, more indirect
    circumstantial indicators. See, e.g., United States v. Williamson, 
    533 F.3d 269
    ,
    277–78 (5th Cir. 2008) (“We have held in the past that the mere possession of
    a quantity of drugs inconsistent with personal use will suffice for the jury to
    find intent to distribute.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Munoz, 
    957 F.2d 171
    , 174 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding “distribution paraphernalia, large
    quantities of cash, or the value and quality of the substance” probative of
    intent).
    In short, whatever the context, a defendant’s purpose often goes hand in
    hand with certain suspicious circumstances, and we do not forbid jurors from
    drawing rational connections between the two. We therefore agree with our
    sister circuits that have decided the Government need not prove “an ‘actual
    payment or even an agreement to pay’” to satisfy the financial-purpose
    element. United States v. Kim, 
    435 F.3d 182
    , 185 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
    (quoting United States v. Angwin, 
    271 F.3d 786
    , 805 (9th Cir. 2001)).
    8
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115     Page: 9   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    Consequently, the fact that D.I.P.M. did not testify to an agreed-upon,
    profitable payment does not end our inquiry.
    Turning to the record before us, we find sufficient circumstantial
    indicators of Garcia’s pecuniary motive. First, and most important, the jury
    was free to infer that Garcia bore no relation (familial or otherwise) to the
    smuggled children. D.I.P.M. testified that she was not related to Garcia; nor
    had the two met before the day of the smuggling. Garcia points out that
    D.I.P.M. did not know all of her mother’s acquaintances, and in turn, the
    Government “could not rule out that Ms. Garcia was acting out of friendship
    [with the mother] rather than financial motive.” Yet, D.I.P.M. did know some
    of her mother’s friends and was nonetheless wholly unfamiliar with Garcia.
    And, in any event, the evidence “need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis
    of innocence.” United States v. Gibson, 
    875 F.3d 179
    , 185 (5th Cir. 2017)
    (quotation omitted). Rather, the jury was free to choose among reasonable
    constructions of the evidence, including that Garcia was unrelated to and
    unacquainted with D.I.P.M.’s family.
    This lack of connection between Garcia and the smuggled children
    undercuts the exculpatory inference that Garcia acted for a charitable,
    non-pecuniary purpose, thereby making the contrary financial motive all the
    more probable. Multiple courts (this one included) have recognized as much.
    See, e.g., United States v. Yoshida, 
    303 F.3d 1145
    , 1152 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (“Yoshida, as a stranger to the aliens, had no benevolent reason to lead them
    into the United States. It was reasonable for the jury to infer that Yoshida
    expected some payment for her role in leading the aliens . . . .”); United States
    v. Lopez-Cabrera, 617 F. App’x 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (listing
    the fact that “[n]one of the immigrants Cabrera transported had any personal
    relationship with Cabrera” among the circumstantial evidence probative of a
    financial purpose). And this logic is not unique to the smuggling context either;
    9
    Case: 17-40175   Document: 00514358115      Page: 10   Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    just as a large quantity of drugs negates the exculpatory inference of personal
    consumption and lends itself to an intent to distribute, 
    Williamson, 533 F.3d at 277
    –78, when someone smuggles a stranger, a rational inference is that she
    does so for compensation, 
    Yoshida, 303 F.3d at 1152
    .
    Second, the nature of Garcia’s offense is itself probative of an intent to
    profit. Garcia’s smuggling was by no means a casual undertaking. To the
    contrary, the trial evidence confirmed that Garcia’s operation was
    premeditated, complete with an international journey, false identities, cover
    stories, and Texas birth certificates to legitimize the facade. The jury could
    reasonably infer that this level of planning and coordination was more
    consistent with that of a professional, financed operation than an amateur,
    philanthropic one. See United States v. Allende-Garcia, 407 F. App’x 829, 835
    (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“The coordination and planning that was
    required for transporting a number of aliens, using a raft, a house, two cars,
    and a truck, could lead a reasonable jury to infer that a smuggling network
    was moving the aliens . . . .”). Furthermore, Garcia carried out the smuggling
    at great risk of legal consequences, not only to herself but to her 17-year old
    daughter in the driver’s seat. Such risk, when unexplained, further buttresses
    an inference of pecuniary motive. See 
    id. (noting that
    the defendant “did not
    advance at trial any alternative, non-pecuniary explanation of why he would
    risk being caught, losing his job, and going to prison for transporting the
    aliens”).
    Finally, we reach D.I.P.M.’s testimony about a payment for expenses.
    True, this expected reimbursement does not meet the Government’s burden of
    proof on its own. But the payment does provide an important piece of the
    circumstantial equation: Garcia’s smuggling operation had a financer,
    someone who was ready and willing to contribute money to facilitate the
    operation’s success. D.I.P.M. did not profess exhaustive knowledge of the
    10
    Case: 17-40175    Document: 00514358115     Page: 11     Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    financial arrangements; she “only kn[e]w” about the reimbursement. Thus, the
    jury could simultaneously credit D.I.P.M.’s testimony and nevertheless infer—
    given the circumstantial indicators recognized above—that Garcia sought
    compensation from the unknown           financer   beyond     that of    a mere
    reimbursement.
    This body of evidence differs markedly from Garcia’s best case, United
    States v. Garza, 
    587 F.3d 304
    (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). There, despite the
    fact that the defendant pleaded guilty only to smuggling unlawful aliens under
    8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) (a lesser crime that does not require a pecuniary
    motive), the district court erroneously entered judgment for smuggling with a
    financial purpose. 
    Id. at 311–12.
    On appeal, both sides agreed that “no
    financial gain motive was established,” and the record confirmed why: two
    aliens approached the defendant at a gas station and asked her for a ride, the
    defendant claimed she had not discussed payment with the men and expected
    no compensation in return for her assistance, and, importantly, the “record
    suggest[ed] that the men had no ability to pay and actually asked Garza for
    money before asking for a ride.” 
    Id. at 307,
    312. Thus, not only did the record
    contain a non-pecuniary explanation for the defendant’s assistance, any
    conceivable financial inference was nullified by the aliens’ unwillingness and
    inability to pay. See 
    id. at 312.
    Quite the opposite here. The evidence below
    gave the jury an impression of both financial motive and the existence of a
    financial source, and the jury heard absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise.
    At the end of the day, “[j]urors need not leave their commonsense on the
    courthouse steps.” 
    Williamson, 533 F.3d at 278
    . Though the Government’s
    circumstantial evidence was not overwhelming, we cannot conclude that the
    only reasonable inference therefrom was that Garcia desired to perform her
    smuggling service for free. Nor can we conclude that the contrary financial
    inference was unduly speculative. In so deciding, we do not evaluate the
    11
    Case: 17-40175     Document: 00514358115     Page: 12      Date Filed: 02/22/2018
    No. 17-40175
    hypothetical sufficiency of any one piece of the Government’s circumstantial
    evidence. We can only judge the case before us, and the confluence of evidence
    in this case was sufficient to sustain Garcia’s conviction.
    AFFIRMED.
    12