United States v. Martinez-Laredo ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50731
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTIN MARTINEZ-LAREDO, also known as Martin Martinez,
Defendant-Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-00-CR-131-2
--------------------
July 12, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martin Martinez-Laredo challenges his conviction for
conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f)(2000). Martinez-Laredo
argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it
did not define a false identification document. Section
1028(c)(1) allows prosecution under § 1028(a) and (f) if “the
identification document or false identification document is or
appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50731
-2-
States. . . .” Although the statute as written at the time of
Martinez-Laredo’s offense does not contain a distinction between
a false identification document and an identification document
used for other than lawful purposes, the statute leaves no doubt
that the use of either document for fraud is illegal and does not
encourage arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement. Buckley
v. Collins, 904 F.2d 263, 266 (5th Cir. 1990)
Martinez-Laredo argues that he was indicted for a single
conspiracy and that the proof at trial established multiple
conspiracies. On appeal, Martinez-Laredo does not challenge the
testimony of Jose Luis Montes-Sanchez, a codefendant who pleaded
guilty to the conspiracy charge, that he and Martinez-Laredo
engaged in a three year conspiracy to buy and sell 97 sets of
identification documents. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, reasonable jurors would not have
been precluded from finding a single conspiracy beyond a
reasonable doubt. See United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 291
(5th Cir. 1999); United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 118
(5th Cir. 1989).
Martinez-Laredo concedes that venue was proper, given that
we reject his multiple-conspiracies argument. See United States
v. Pomranz, 43 F.3d 156, 158-59 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.