United States v. Paredes-Jimenez , 97 F. App'x 471 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 26, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40944
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
NOE PAREDES-JIMENEZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-03-CR-519-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Noe Paredes-Jimenez was convicted by a jury of two counts of
transporting undocumented aliens within the United States. The
district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty-seven
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Paredes-Jimenez contends that the Government did not present
evidence sufficient to prove that he knew the undocumented aliens
were inside his trailer. In our evaluation of the sufficiency of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-40944
-2-
the evidence, we ask whether a rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Williams, 132 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (5th
Cir. 1998). We view the evidence and all inferences reasonably
drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict.
Id. at 1059. A violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 requires proof that
the defendant acted wilfully. Williams, 132 F.3d at 1059.
The evidence established that Paredes-Jimenez left the
trailer locked overnight and took the keys with him. The padlock
had to be removed for the trailer doors to be opened. Thus, the
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was
sufficient to establish that Paredes-Jimenez knew aliens were in
the trailer. See id.Paredes-Jimenez contends that the Government improperly
shifted the burden of proof when the Assistant U.S. Attorney
(“AUSA”) asked a border patrol agent whether Paredes-Jimenez had
explained how the aliens could have gotten inside the locked
trailer. Paredes-Jimenez contends that the district court’s
statements that the exact date of the offense was not an issue
invaded the province of the jury and constituted a comment on the
evidence that suggested the evidence was sufficient.
Paredes-Jimenez did not object to the AUSA’s question and
the district court’s statements. Therefore, our review is for
plain error only. See United States v. Sanchez, 325 F.3d 600,
603 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. White, 972 F.2d 590, 597
No. 03-40944
-3-
(5th Cir. 1992). “Plain error is error which, when examined in
the context of the entire case, is so obvious and substantial
that failure to notice and correct it would affect the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” White,
972 F.2d at 598 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Paredes-Jimenez has not shown that the AUSA’s question and
the district court’s statement were error, much less plain error.
See id. He has not demonstrated that the alleged errors affected
the fairness of the proceedings. See id. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.