UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERICK TURCIOS-LAZO, a/k/a Scorpion, a/k/a Alacran, a/k/a 

Cebolla,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00370-LMB-1)

Submitted: March 19, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter L. Goldman, O’REILLY & MARK, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Morris 

R. Parker, Jr., Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Erick Eduardo Turcios-Lazo appeals his conviction for 

conspiracy to murder Lisandra Quintanilla in aid of 

racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (2006), 

through his participation in the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”) 

gang. He asserts that the district court erred by admitting 

certain evidence and contends that the evidence did not support 

his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Turcios-Lazo asserts that the district court violated 

Fed. R. Evid. 403 by admitting evidence of three murders 

unrelated to the charge in the indictment and in which he was 

not involved. “Evidence is unfairly prejudicial and thus should 

be excluded under Rule 403 when there is a genuine risk that the 

emotions of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and 

this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the 

offered evidence.” United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 319 

(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), 

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 770 (2008). We have reviewed the trial 

transcript and conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in admitting evidence of the murders. See United 

States v. Rooks, __ F.3d __, __, 2010 WL 668924, at *3 (4th Cir. 

Feb. 25, 2010) (providing standard); United States v. Jones, 566 

F.3d 353, 363 (3d Cir.) (collecting cases finding evidence of 

murders, some gruesome, committed by other gang members not 
3

unfairly prejudicial where evidence demonstrated defendant did 

not commit murders and was used to prove existence of 

enterprise), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 528 (2009). Moreover, the 

district court reduced the risk of unfair prejudice by 

instructing the jury that Turcios-Lazo was on trial only for the 

offense charged in the indictment, see Rooks, __ F.3d at __, 

2010 WL 668924, at *5, and “[w]e presume that juries follow [the 

court’s limiting] instructions.” United States v. Johnson, 587 

F.3d 625, 631 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore conclude that 

Turcios-Lazo is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Next, Turcios-Lazo challenges the district court’s 

admission of testimony from Detective Saa, an expert witness, 

because the testimony relied on hearsay from MS-13 members, was 

based on knowledge he collected from sources not written by him, 

and violated the Confrontation Clause. Assuming, without 

deciding, that the district court’s admission of Saa’s testimony 

violated Fed. R. Evid. 703, and the Confrontation Clause, we 

conclude that any error was harmless in light of extensive 

testimony from actual MS-13 members about the gang’s structure, 

organization, rules, and punishments; the murders on which the 

Government relied to establish that MS-13 was an enterprise 

engaged in racketeering activities as well as MS-13’s 

involvement in drug dealing and extortion; and Turcios-Lazo’s 

participation in the conspiracy to murder Quintanilla. See
4

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15 (1999) (“[T]he test for 

determining whether a constitutional error is harmless . . . is 

whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error 

complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Johnson, 587 

F.3d at 637 (“Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if a 

reviewing court is able to say, with fair assurance, after 

pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous 

action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially 

swayed by the [nonconstitutional] error.”) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Finally, Turcios-Lazo contends that the Government 

failed to prove that MS-13 was an enterprise, as defined in 18 

U.S.C. § 1959(b)(2) (2006), and that he joined in the conspiracy 

to kill Quintanilla. Although Turcios-Lazo filed a motion 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, he did not rely specifically on 

the grounds he asserts on appeal. Thus, our review is only for 

plain error. United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 331-32 

(4th Cir. 2008) (discussing standard of review); see United

States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 279 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Substantial 

evidence is evidence that a reasonable fact-finder could accept 

as adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant’s guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
5

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Government, see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 

(1942), our careful review of the trial transcript leads us to 

conclude that the jury did not err, plainly or otherwise, in 

concluding that the evidence established that MS-13 was an 

enterprise and that Turcios-Lazo participated in the conspiracy 

to kill Quintanilla. See United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997, 

1003 (4th Cir. 1994) (discussing elements of offense). To the 

extent Turcios-Lazo challenges the credibility of the 

Government’s witnesses, this court “do[es] not weigh the 

evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, but assume[s] 

that the jury resolved any discrepancies [in the testimony] in 

favor of the government.” United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 

440 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED