United States v. Castaneda-Martinez

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 20, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
Nos. 03-51103
and 03-51104
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN CASTANEDA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-711-ALL-PRM
__________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In these consolidated appeals, Ruben Castaneda-Martinez
(“Castaneda”) challenges his jury -trial conviction and 63-month
sentence for illegal re-entry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the
revocation of his supervised release. We AFFIRM.
Castaneda argues that the district court erred in refusing
to instruct the jury on the insanity defense. He contends that
his illegal re-entry conviction should be vacated and that the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
revocation of his supervised release must also be vacated.
The difficulty with this contention is that there is no
evidence of a severe mental illness resulting in an inability to
appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his
acts. Dr. Briones did testify to a mental illness due to
substance abuse joined with an impulsivity and, further, that it
was possible for Castaneda to feel that it would be worse to
disobey God’s will than man’s law. And Castaneda did testify
that he thought that there was no spiritual wrong for him to
enter the United States.
We determine that this evidence fails to meet the
requirement “that a rational jury could conclude, by clear and
convincing evidence, that he was unable to appreciate his wrong
doing as a result of a severe mental illness.” See United States
v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 406 (5th Cir. 1999).
Castaneda also raises an Apprendi contention that is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres.
We AFFIRM Castaneda’s conviction and sentence, and we AFFIRM
the revocation of his supervised release.
2