Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Andres MENDOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40574
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 24, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Fausto Sosa, The Law Offices of Fausto Sosa, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Andres Mendoza-Martinez (Mendoza) appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for private financial gain and transporting illegal aliens for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (a)(l)(B)(i). Mendoza argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he conspired to transport illegal aliens for private financial gain and that he transported illegal aliens for private financial gain. Because Mendoza failed to renew his motion for acquittal at the close of all evidence, he waived his objection to the trial court’s earlier denial of his motion. See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir.2001). In such a situation, this court’s review is limited to determining whether the defendant’s conviction “resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice,” that is whether “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt” or whether “the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1358 (5th Cir.1994). A review of the record indicates that there is sufficient evidence of guilt. Therefore, Mendoza has not shown that his conviction would result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” See id. Accordingly, Mendoza’s conviction is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.