United States v. Chavira-Cruz

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51078
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN FRANCISCO CHAVIRA-CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-03-CR-465-1-DB
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Francisco Chavira-Cruz appeals his jury convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000 or more
kilograms of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute
1000 or more kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district
court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay evidence,
including a Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) report
showing that Chavira-Cruz and others involved in the offense
crossed the border into the United States from Mexico at
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-51078
-2-
approximately the same time on the same date. Because Chavira-Cruz
did not object to the TECS report on hearsay grounds in the
district court, review is limited to plain error. See United
States v. Polasek, 162 F.3d 878, 883 (5th Cir. 1998). The district
court did not plainly err in admitting the TECS report as it was
admissible as a public record pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 803(8). See
United States v. Puente, 826 F.2d 1415, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1987).
Chavira-Cruz argues that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting the statement of Juan Perez-Chavez because
the Government did not allege that Perez-Chavez was a coconspirator
and the conspiracy had ended at the time the statement was made.
The statement was offered to prove that Perez-Chavez and Chavira-
Cruz both used similar cover stories -- they told police that they
had come to the United States to find out how to import various
items into Mexico from the United States. Because the statement
was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the
statement was not hearsay, and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the statement into evidence. See United
States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 394 (5th Cir. 1997).
Chavira-Cruz argues that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting the English translation of his handwritten
statement made in Spanish. Chavira-Cruz’s statement was not
hearsay because it was admissible as a party admission pursuant to
FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2). See United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192,
198 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abused its
No. 03-51078
-3-
discretion in admitting the English translation of the statement as
a translation does not create an additional level of hearsay. See
United States v. Codero, 18 F.3d 1248, 1253 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.