Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10061/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosauro Camacho Banaban
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-10061

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

 

ROSAURO CAMACHO BANABAN; ELISEO CRUZ TOLENTINO; JOSE SALTA

MAGLALANG JR.,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-149-6-Y

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants-Appellants were convicted of using false

attestation in connection with employment in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1546(b)(3). Each was sentenced to time served, two years of

supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. They have

appealed their convictions on several grounds. We find each of

their arguments meritless for the following reasons and accordingly

AFFIRM.

 Case: 03-10061 Document: 005184618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2004
2

First, we reject the contentions that the evidence was

insufficient because a reasonable trier of fact could have found,

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants knowingly presented

a false attestation. United States v. Perrien, 274 F.3d 936, 939

(5th Cir. 2001). Further, any argument that venue was improper

was waived when the argument was not asserted at trial. United

States v. Delgado-Nunez, 295 F.3d 494, 496 (5th Cir. 2002).

Second, sufficient proof was put forth evincing defendants’

ability to understand English such that the district court’s

finding that the statements were voluntary, and its admission of

the statements, were proper. United States v. Alvarado, 898 F.2d

987, 991 (5th Cir. 1990).

Third, the district court properly rejected defendants’

challenges under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because

neither provision creates individually enforceable rights. See

United States v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2001);

Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 164 (2d Cir. 2003).

Fourth, the “specialty doctrine” does not preclude the

defendants’ prosecution because the defendants were not “delivered

by any foreign government to an agent of the United States”;

instead, they were present in the United States when arrested and

prosecuted. 18 U.S.C. § 3192 (2003). 

Fifth, a hearing should not have been granted and the charges

should not have been dismissed for selective prosecution because

 Case: 03-10061 Document: 005184618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2004
3

the defendants’ meager presentation of conclusory allegations and

statistics was insufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the

constitutionality of prosecution. United States v. Jones, 287 F.3d

325, 333-334 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d

308, 334 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Jennings, 724 F.2d 436,

445-46 (5th Cir. 1984).

Sixth, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to dismiss the charges based on prosecutorial misconduct

because an Assistant United States Attorney is permitted to

“threaten” a defendant with more serious charges or an enhanced

sentence if he does not plead guilty to the charged offense. See

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978). Further,

allegations that the government instructed a witness not to discuss

the case with defendants outside the presence of a federal agent

are not supported by the record. 

Seventh, defendants did not offer any evidence -- i.e.

newspaper articles, television reports, or other media reports --

evincing that the jury pool was prejudicially tainted. Mayola v.

State of Ala., 623 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1980). Moreover, the

district court appropriately conducted a thorough voir dire,

ensuring that the jurors could set aside any opinions they had of

the case. United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190, 197 (5th Cir.

1978).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

admitting the business records of Sharp Aviation because the

 Case: 03-10061 Document: 005184618 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2004
4

government had laid a proper foundation for admission under the

business records exception to the hearsay rule. FED. R. EVID.

803(6); 2 JOHN WILLIAM STRONG, MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 292 (4th ed. 1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-10061 Document: 005184618 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/16/2004