Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40776/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zack Sayas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40776

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ZACK SAYAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-956-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zack Sayas appeals from his jury verdict conviction for conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, 

possession with intent to distribute approximately 11.94 kilograms of 

methamphetamine, conspiracy to import a controlled substance into the 

United States, and importing approximately 11.94 kilograms of 

methamphetamine. For the first time, he argues that the district court erred 

* 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

FILED

April 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-40776 Document: 00515390622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2020
No. 18-40776

2

by misstating the law in the jury instruction for the public authority defense. 

We review this unpreserved challenge for plain error. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); see also United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995, 

1000 (5th Cir. 1985).

The jury was instructed that, pursuant to the public authority or 

government authorization defense, it should find Sayas not guilty of all four 

charges if he proved “by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting as 

an authorized government agent to assist in law enforcement activity at the 

time of the offense charged in the indictment.” Sayas acknowledges our 

holding in United States v. Sariles, 645 F.3d 315, 317-18 (5th Cir. 2011), that 

the public authority defense requires the government agent to have actual 

authority to permit the defendant’s act, but he specifies in his reply brief that 

he is not relying on a theory of apparent authority. Sayas contends that the 

jury should have instead been told that he had a “reasonable belief” that he 

was acting as an authorized government agent in relation to the charged 

offenses.

The reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he was acting as an 

authorized government agent is a relevant jury consideration for purposes of a 

public authority defense. See United States v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522, 542 (5th Cir. 

2012); Sariles, 645 F.3d at 318. Nevertheless, even if it is assumed that this 

omission constituted clear or obvious error in this case, Sayas has not met his 

burden of showing that the error affected his substantial rights or that we 

should exercise our discretion to correct that error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135; United States v. Andaverde-Tinoco, 741 F.3d 509, 522-23 (5th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-40776 Document: 00515390622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2020