P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50743 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. JO S E A R M IN C A S T ILL O

- M O R A L E S , al so kn ow n as Lu i s Sosa M oral es, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U S D C N o . 2 :07 -C R -2 5 -5
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d W IE N E R an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J ose A rm i n C a sti l l o-M ora l es w a s con victedbya juryof con sp i ra cyto po s s e s s w i t h i nt e ntt o d i st r ibut e m ar ij uanaa nd was s e nt e nc e d t o 7 2 m o nt hs i m priso n m e n tan d three years of sup ervi sed rel ease. C astil l o- M oral es argues t h at he w as un fai rly surpri sed by the i n cl u si on of an ai di n gan d ab et t i n g j u ry i ns t r uc t i o n b e c aus e hi s i ndi c t m e nt di d no t c har ge hi m w i t h a i di ng anda be t t i ng u n der 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2. H e con t en ds t h at th e G overnm en tfai l ed to give h i m noti ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50743

2 of an ai di n g an d ab et t i n g cha rge bu t p re sen t ed an ai di n g an d ab et t i n g case, wh i c h h e d i dn o ta p p r e c i a t e u n t i lt o o l a t e a tt h e j u r yc h a r g e c o n fe r e n c e . H e argu es t h at th i s un fai r notice af fect ed h i s abi l i t y t o prepa re hi s defen se. Al t ho ught he i ndi c t m e ntdi d no ts pe c i f i c all y c har ge a i di ng anda be t t i ng ex p ress l y o r b y refere n ce to 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 , “[a]i d i n g a n da b etti n g i s n ot a sep a ra te of fen se, bu ti ti s an al t erna t ive cha rge i n every i n di ct m en t , w h et h er exp l i ci tor i m p lic it. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Ne al , 95 1 F
. 2 d63 0 , 63 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 2 ). “Ab sen t a s ho w i ng o f

unfairs ur pr i s e , i ti s notan abus e of di s c r e t i o n t o g ive a n a i di ng and a b etti n g in stru cti on . ” I d. Cas t i l l o - M o r al e s ha s no tm ad e as ho w i ng o f unfairs ur pr i s e . The i n di ct m en tdi d n otf

orecl ose t h e possibi l i t y of convi ct i on as an a i der an d ab et t or. T h e evi den ce provi ded by C astil l o- M oral es i n h i s ow n t est i m on y t h at he carr i ed a b a c k p a c k wi t h f

o o d a n d wa t e r f

o r t h e g r o u p wa s s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o ve t hathe ac t e d a s a n ai de rand ab e t t o r . C as t i l l o - M o r al e s s ho ul d ha ve a nt i c i pa t e d t hatt he G o v e r n m e n t w o u ldre q u e s t a n in s tr u c tio no n a id in ga n d a b e tt in g . S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. B o tello , 9 9 1 F .2 d1 8 9 , 1 9 2 (5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) (r eje c tin gcla im o f u n fa ir surpri se because i n di ctm e n t d i d n otf orecl ose possibi l i t y of convi ct i on as ai der an d ab et t o r a n d evi den ce s u pp ort ed aidi n g an d ab et t i n g convic t i on )
. C astil l oM oral es adm i t s i n hi s bri ef t h at i t i s “u n di spu t ed that t h e evi den ce s u pp ort s a cha rge on ai di n g an d abett i n g based on t h e G overnm en t ’ s c ross - exam i n ati on of C a s tillo -M o r a les.”C a still o-M ora l es c a n n o t c la im u n fa irs u r p r is e w h e n it w a s h is o w n t e s t i m o ny t hatpr o m pt e d t he G o ve r nm e ntt o r e que s tt he a i di n g and a b e tt in gin s tr u c tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n . Ne al , 951 F. 2d at633. AF F I RMED.