IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20230

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ISRAEL ARQUIMIDES MARTINEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and ENGELHARDT, Circuit 

Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge:

After a months-long investigation into hiring practices at Waste 

Management Incorporated (“WMI”), the Government charged DefendantAppellant Israel Arguimides Martinez and several co-defendants with various 

immigration crimes stemming from their participation in efforts to recruit and 

retain undocumented immigrants for employment at WMI in Houston, Texas. 

Martinez was later also charged by Superseding Indictment with several 

counts of identity-theft stemming from the same underlying scheme. After a 

nine-day jury trial, Martinez was convicted of all 18 counts charged in the 

Superseding Indictment and was sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment and 

three years of supervised release. He now challenges the sufficiency of the 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

2

evidence supporting his conviction, arguing primarily that he was never 

involved in the scheme giving rise to his charges. Because the Government 

presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict, we AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

WMI is a waste disposal and environmental services company

headquartered in Houston, Texas. WMI maintained a facility on Afton Road in 

Houston (“Afton Road location”) where employees held various positions, 

including those of “helpers,”1 drivers, commercial route managers, technicians, 

maintainers, welders, hazardous material experts, and landfill gas operators.

Martinez worked as the residential operations lead driver for WMI for several 

years leading up to his arrest.

WMI hired its employees through Associated Marine and Industrial 

Staffing Company (“AMI”), a staffing and payroll services company contracted 

by WMI to provide part-time employees. Mary Louise Flores (“Flores”) and 

Fernando Emmanuel Bustos (“Bustos”) were on-site supervisors for AMI at 

WMI’s Afton Road location. Flores had worked for AMI for 12 years before her 

arrest, and she began working at the Afton Road location in 2011 as AMI’s

onsite representative. She held that position for 11 months. 

Applicants who sought employment at WMI would submit their 

applications, in addition to an identification or resident card and a Social 

Security card, through AMI. AMI was responsible for conducting employment 

eligibility verification through the Department of Homeland Security’s EVerify/Basic Pilot Program (“E-Verify”).2 AMI was also required to examine 

 

1 “Helpers” are WMI employees who ride on the back of waste disposal trucks during 

trash pickup routes. 

2 E-Verify is an internet-based system that allows an employer, using information 

reported on a prospective employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form (“I-9”), to 

determine the eligibility of that employee to work in the United States.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

3

documentation provided by prospective employees for genuineness at the time 

of hire to verify their identity and employment eligibility.

According to several trial witnesses, it was “common knowledge” at WMI 

that most of the helpers were undocumented immigrants, and several of the 

illegally hired helpers testified that they had used fake documents purchased 

at flea markets to procure employment at WMI through AMI. In 2011, Staff 

Management, an auditing company for WMI, examined and audited AMI’s 

employee records and confirmed that many of the helpers staffed by AMI at 

WMI were working there illegally. Flores was instructed to “clean house,” that 

is, to fire all of the undocumented aliens staffed by AMI and working at WMI. 

Flores notified Cesar Arroyo Santiago (“Santiago”), WMI’s district 

operations manager, of her directive, but Santiago declined to take immediate 

action because WMI’s entire operations system would be negatively affected 

for lack of capable, competent employees. Flores thereafter discussed the need 

to “clean house” with Martinez on several occasions, and he advised that it 

would be difficult to find the right people for the job. Nonetheless, AMI and 

WMI began incrementally firing undocumented or illegally documented 

employees. 

During a staff safety meeting on January 31, 2012, WMI employees were 

told that their employment documents would be checked and, if found invalid, 

they would be terminated. Santiago, Flores, Martinez, and Rudy Martinez (of 

no relation, and hereinafter called “Rudy”),3 Martinez’s supervisor, were 

present at the meeting. Santiago notified the helpers that they needed to 

provide the proper identification documents or else they would be fired, and 

Flores joined Santiago in encouraging the helpers to find valid identification 

and Social Security numbers and return to WMI. Martinez did not say 

 

3 Rudy and Martinez were tried together. Rudy is not a party to this appeal.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

4

anything at the meeting. Approximately 45 WMI employees did not have valid 

employment documents and were fired after the January 2012 safety meeting.

Flores and Santiago told the fired helpers that they could return to work if they 

brought valid documents, even if they belonged to another person.

Shortly after the January 2012 safety meeting, Flores and Martinez 

discussed ways for illegally employed helpers to continue working at WMI.

According to Flores, Martinez suggested that they assign the identities of 

former applicants and employees to the illegal helpers. Flores testified that 

Martinez gathered and provided previous driver logs that included the names 

of former helpers. Flores then reviewed the records to confirm whether the 

former employees were still active in the AMI system, which would mean that 

no further documentation would be needed. She would then reactivate the 

individual’s status in AMI’s system. Martinez and Flores took the idea to 

Santiago, who assented.

Over the course of several months, Flores, Santiago, and Martinez 

executed their plan by identifying former helpers, reactivating them in AMI’s 

employment system, and assigning their identities to illegal helpers. According 

to the Government, approximately 25 illegal aliens procured identification 

documents of other persons and returned to work under different names at 

WMI with the knowledge of Martinez, Flores, Rudy, and Santiago. The firedand-rehired helpers received unique personal identification numbers (“PINs”)

that corresponded to their new identities and were required to sign and cash 

their paychecks under their new names.

These rehired helpers included Inmer Guzman-Ventura, who testified 

that Martinez instructed him to contact Flores about getting his job back. 

When he was rehired, Guzman-Ventura was given several names to work 

under. Another individual, Everado Gonzalez-Martinez, returned to work at 

WMI under a new identity after the mass firing at Flores’s direction. After his 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

5

initial new identity was revoked, Martinez instructed him to get a good, or 

valid, Social Security number. After Gonzalez-Martinez got a new Social 

Security number, he was instructed by Martinez to take his identification 

information to Flores. The Government also produced Jose Soriano-Ventura, 

who testified that Flores assigned him a new name after he was told he could 

no longer work under his initially given name. Willians Campos-Lopez testified 

that after the mass firing, he received a phone call from Martinez, who told 

him he could return to work under the name Gabriel Alvarez and signed his 

paychecks under the name Alvarez as instructed by Martinez. Campos-Lopez 

also testified that shortly after the January 2012 meeting, Martinez told him 

to call three or five other fired helpers and advise them to return to WMI, and 

that Martinez would help them obtain new identities. Noe Baudilio-Garcia

testified that he spoke with Martinez shortly after the mass firings and was 

told to speak with Flores about getting his job back. Alexander Garcia-Lopez 

also stopped working at WMI because he lacked valid identification documents, 

but he received a call from Martinez telling him not to worry about his job 

because he would continue to work under another name. Garcia-Lopez 

thereafter received a new name (Tomas Gomez) from Martinez. Jesus 

Barrientos-Alvarado testified that he obtained valid documents on his own and 

submitted a new, different name to Martinez who did not show any surprise 

upon receiving the new documents. Finally, Jose Benitez testified that, at the 

direction of Martinez, he obtained a new name on his own and submitted it to 

Flores, and Martinez called him by his new name.

The identification-reassignment scheme created some confusion among 

the orchestrators and, according to Flores, she and Martinez worked closely to 

keep the undocumented employees’ identities straight. The two of them even 

created “cheat sheets” to keep track of their work. The “cheat sheets” changed 

almost daily, and Martinez reviewed the sheets with Flores a couple of times 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

6

per week to ensure that a legitimate name was not used during the same week 

by more than one helper. Flores also testified that she occasionally saw 

Martinez hand rehired helpers a slip of paper with a PIN linked with another 

person’s valid identification information to use for clocking in. Santiago 

testified that he had witnessed Martinez encouraging illegal helpers to obtain 

the identification documents of another person to continue working. Both 

Flores and Santiago confirmed that Martinez had no authority to hire people 

to work at AMI or WMI and that he was not in charge of screening employees. 

Other WMI employees testified about the scheme. Rose Schuler, a driver 

at WMI, testified that she personally saw several fired helpers return to work, 

and she was instructed by Martinez to call them by different names. She also 

testified that Martinez told her WMI could not assist helpers in obtaining work 

visas but suggested the helpers find people who were not using their Social 

Security numbers, such as people who were in jail. Teri Minarcik, who worked 

as a residential route manager at WMI, testified that she noticed that several 

helpers who had been at WMI for years disappeared but returned to work with 

new names. Minarcik confirmed that Martinez did not hire anyone and that 

helpers were hired through AMI. 

Special Agent Eleazar Paredes, a member of the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Work-Site Enforcement Group who conducted 

the investigation into WMI, was initially informed that WMI was employing 

illegal immigrants by two disgruntled illegal helpers who were dissatisfied 

with the working conditions at WMI and were concerned they would lose their 

jobs if they did not obtain new identities. At trial, Special Agent Paredes 

identified several illegal helpers recruited by AMI and WMI whom he had 

interviewed and who had told him that they were encouraged to return to work 

if they were able to get valid Social Security cards.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

7

Federal agents executed a search warrant at WMI’s Afton Road location 

on April 24, 2012. The agents discovered and arrested 16 illegal employees in 

the building. Over the next several months, agents debriefed over a dozen 

witnesses who had illegally worked for AMI at WMI and who stated that

although Martinez knew the AMI workers were illegally employed, he and 

others repeatedly told them to obtain new, valid employment documents.

Additionally, three victims whose identities were used by illegal helpers 

testified that they did not authorize anyone to use their identification 

information for employment at WMI. 

At trial, Martinez moved for a judgment of acquittal twice—at the close 

of the Government’s case and again at the close of the defense’s case—and was 

twice denied. In its jury instructions, the district court explained to the jurors 

the possibility of convicting Martinez on the theory of Pinkerton liability, that 

is, that Martinez might be liable for the criminal acts of his charged and 

uncharged co-conspirators, although he himself may not have personally 

committed each element of each crime charged. See Pinkerton v. United States, 

328 U.S. 640, 646-48 (1946). The district court also instructed the jurors on the 

law applicable to aiding and abetting the commission of the substantive 

offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment.

On April 8, 2016, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all 18 counts of 

the Superseding Indictment.4 Martinez was thereafter sentenced to 87 months 

of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. He timely 

appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Martinez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 

conviction of all counts, arguing that the evidence did not establish his 

 

4 Rudy was also convicted of all 18 counts charged in the Superseding Indictment.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

8

knowledge of or participation in the crimes charged. Because Martinez timely 

moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case and 

after the jury returned its verdict under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

29(c), his appeal is subject to de novo review. United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 

862 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 2017). Martinez’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

challenges are evaluated “with substantial deference to the jury verdict.” 

United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Thus, we

will affirm “if a reasonable juror could conclude that the elements of the crime 

were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Evans, 892 F.3d

692, 702 (5th Cir. 2018). The court must “view[] the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict” and draw “all reasonable inferences from the evidence 

to support the verdict.” United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 

2007) (quoting United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 770–71 (5th Cir. 

2005)). 

A. Conspiring to Hire and Hiring Illegal Helpers

Counts One and Two of the Superseding Indictment charge Martinez 

with conspiring to hire ten or more undocumented aliens and the underlying 

substantive offense. To prove Martinez’s guilt for the conspiracy charge, the 

Government was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the 

existence of an agreement between two or more persons to pursue an unlawful 

objective (here, to hire undocumented aliens), (2) that Martinez knew of the 

conspiracy and intended to and did join it, and (3) that one of the members of 

the conspiracy performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United 

States v. Read, 710 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); see also 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371. An express or explicit agreement is not required; “a tacit agreement is 

enough.” United States v. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d 614, 623 (5th Cir. 2014)

(quoting United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1189 (5th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Evidence of a conspiracy and a 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

9

defendant’s participation in it may be circumstantial, and a jury may infer that 

a conspiracy exists based on “the presence, association, and concerted action of 

the defendant with others.” United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704, 719 (5th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mere association with 

a co-conspirator alone does not support an inference of participation in a 

conspiracy. United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d 1039, 1055 (5th Cir. 1981). 

Uncorroborated testimony from an accomplice or a cooperating witness may 

support a conviction so long as the testimony is not incredible or otherwise 

facially insubstantial. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d at 623. Testimony is not incredible 

“unless it pertains to matters that the witness physically could not have 

observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To find Martinez guilty of unlawfully employing ten or more 

unauthorized aliens, the Government was required to prove that, during the 

period of the conspiracy, Martinez knowingly hired at least ten persons with 

actual knowledge that they were unauthorized aliens and that they were 

brought to the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a).5 See 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(3)(A). To prove that Martinez aided and abetted the commission of that 

 

5 The governing statute’s definition of “alien” carries with it complexities and nuances 

that this circuit has not previously had the opportunity to flesh out. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) 

criminalizes hiring for employment at least ten individuals with actual knowledge that the 

individuals are aliens as described in subparagraph B. Subparagraph B goes on to define an 

“alien” as one “who . . . (i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a(h)(3)) . . . , 

and (ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). It is not altogether clear whether “this subsection” refers to 

Section 1324(a)(3) as the relevant subsection under Section 1324(a) or to another provision 

within Section 1324. Reading “this subsection” to refer to Section 1324(a)(3) might suggest 

that the Government must prove that the aliens were knowingly brought into the United 

States (as opposed to having arrived in the United States on their own) by the employer, i.e., 

by Martinez, or by a third party, which is not alleged here and which is not clear from the 

record. In any event, Martinez did not raise this specific statutory interpretation point before 

the district court or on appeal, and so the point is not before us in this case.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

10

offense,6 the evidence must establish that Martinez “associated with the 

criminal venture, participated in it and sought by his actions to make the 

venture succeed.” Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d at 535 (quoting United States v. 

Villenueva, 408 F.3d 193, 201 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2. Martinez must have had the same criminal 

intent that is required for the substantive offense, although the Government 

need not prove he personally completed each act required for the substantive 

offense. See United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 522–23 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Evidence that supports a conspiracy conviction is generally sufficient to 

support an aiding and abetting conviction. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d at 535 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Martinez argues that the Government’s evidence merely demonstrates 

that he “associated with those participating in” the conspiracy, not that he had 

actual knowledge of the conspiracy. He also contends that he lacked the 

authority to hire the illegal helpers and therefore cannot be convicted for hiring 

illegal aliens or conspiring to do so. 

First, although “mere presence with conspirators or knowledge of a 

conspiracy is insufficient to convict a defendant of conspiracy,” Welch, 656 F.2d 

at 1055, the evidence mounted against Martinez at trial surpasses establishing

“mere presence” and directly implicates him as an active participant in the 

conspiracy. As an initial matter, Martinez has maintained on appeal that he 

gave Flores and Santiago the idea to reassign valid identification documents 

to illegally employed helpers. Flores and Santiago both testified as such at 

trial, stating that Martinez proposed the plan to rehire the then-recently fired 

helpers and to assign to them the identities of former helpers and applicants. 

 

6 One who aids or abets the commission of an offense against the United States may 

be punished as a principal to such offense. 18 U.S.C. § 2.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

11

Flores also testified that Martinez supplied her with identities to reassign and 

worked closely with her to implement the plan of rehiring illegal helpers. Once 

the plan was underway, Flores testified that Martinez helped her keep the new 

identities of the rehired helpers straight and referred to the helpers by their 

newly assigned identities.

Flores’s and Santiago’s testimony is corroborated by several fired 

helpers, who testified that Martinez either directed them to Flores to procure 

identification information to start working again, or specifically instructed 

them to obtain valid identification documents so that they may resume 

working at WMI. Martinez’s former co-workers’ testimony also associates him 

with the identity-reassignment scheme. Rose Schuler testified that Martinez 

knew the rehired helpers were working under different names, and that he 

specifically instructed her to call the rehired helpers by their new names.

Finally, Special Agent Paredes testified that he met with and interviewed 

several former helpers who explained that Martinez either called them to 

return to work or gave them new identities to enable them to return to work.

The foregoing more than adequately incriminates Martinez as having 

knowledge of and being an active, willing participant in the conspiracy to 

rehire illegal helpers. 

That Martinez himself lacked the authority to hire illegal helpers does 

not absolve him of criminal liability for the identity-reassignment conspiracy. 

Although the Government was required to prove that Martinez joined in the 

object of the conspiracy, it was not necessary to prove that he committed a 

substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy. United States v. 

Cuesta, 597 F.2d 903, 918 (5th Cir. 1979). That is, the Government did not need 

to prove that Martinez had hiring authority to convict him of conspiring to hire 

illegal aliens as long as there was evidence establishing Martinez’s knowing 

association with the conspiracy and that a co-conspirator did have the

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

12

authority to hire and used that authority to hire illegal aliens. Here, Flores 

testified that she used her position as an AMI representative to access AMI 

files and reassign legal identities to illegal helpers, and several illegally 

rehired helpers testified that Flores assisted them in obtaining new identities 

to resume working at WMI. Because of Flores’s participation in the conspiracy, 

a jury could convict Martinez of conspiring with Flores to hire illegal helpers. 

The evidence supporting Martinez’s conspiracy conviction is also 

sufficient to support his conviction for aiding and abetting in hiring 

undocumented aliens. Flores’s and Santiago’s testimony about Martinez’s 

participation in the conspiracy demonstrates Martinez’s willing cooperation in 

advancing the scheme and its underlying objective of rehiring a formerly 

illegally employed workforce. Their testimony is again corroborated by the 

illegal helpers, who testified about Martinez’s efforts in assisting the helpers 

with obtaining valid identification documents. Additionally, Martinez’s former 

co-workers’ testimony establishes that Martinez worked diligently to ensure 

that the identity-reassignment scheme was not foiled by inadvertently 

referring to rehired helpers by their actual names. All of this evidence 

demonstrates that Martinez “associated with the criminal venture” of rehiring 

illegal helpers, “participated in it and sought by his actions to make the 

venture succeed,” Jiminez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d at 535, and thereby supports his 

aiding-and-abetting conviction.7

 

7 Because the district court instructed the jury on the applicability of Pinkerton

liability, Martinez’s conviction for the substantive offense of hiring illegal aliens can also be 

sustained on the basis of his actions as a co-conspirator with Flores and Santiago 

notwithstanding his lack of hiring authority. United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 446–47

(5th Cir. 2002). 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

13

B. Conspiring to Encourage and Encouraging Illegal Aliens to Reside in the 

United States

To establish a conspiracy to encourage or induce unlawful aliens to 

reside in the United States, the Government was required to prove that 

Martinez (1) agreed with one or more persons, (2) to encourage or induce the 

aliens named in Counts 4 through 13 of the Superseding Indictment to come 

to, enter, or reside in the United States, (3) with knowledge or reckless 

disregard of the fact that coming to, entering, or residing in the United States 

violated the law, and (4) for the purpose of private financial gain. 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (v)(I). 

Conviction of the substantive offense required a showing that: (1) the 

individuals were aliens; (2) Martinez encouraged or induced the aliens in 

Counts 4 through 13 to come to, enter, or reside in the United States; (3) he 

knowingly or recklessly disregarded the fact that coming to, entering, or 

residing in the United States violated the law; and (4) he did so for the purpose 

of private financial gain. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(II). 

Martinez’s sufficiency challenge substantially mirrors that lodged 

against his conviction for Counts One and Two: he lacked the authority to hire 

illegal helpers and therefore could not have conspired to encourage unlawful 

aliens to enter into or reside in the United States or have committed the 

substantive offense. He adds that because the illegal helpers were already 

present in the United States, they did not need to be induced or encouraged to 

enter or stay.

Martinez’s arguments are again meritless and contrary to the evidence 

presented at trial. Both Flores and Santiago testified that they, along with 

Martinez, agreed to assign new, valid identities to the formerly fired illegal 

helpers. Martinez and his co-defendants also gave the illegal helpers their new 

PINs, and Martinez personally helped verify whether certain PINs

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

14

corresponded with certain illegal helpers. Additionally, Martinez helped Flores 

create cheat sheets to keep the illegal helpers’ new identities straight. This 

evidence, in addition to that mentioned in relation to Counts One and Two, 

demonstrates Martinez’s active participation in the conspiracy of encouraging

illegal helpers to reside in the United States for purposes of financial gain. See 

United States v. Chapman, 851 F.3d 363, 377 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Based on the 

extensive evidence of ‘concert of action’ amongst [the defendant] and others, 

the jury could reasonably infer an agreement, as well as [the defendant’s] 

knowledge, intent, and voluntary participation.” (citations omitted)). 

That Martinez lacked hiring authority is inconsequential, as his coconspirators had (and used) their own hiring authority to recruit and hire the 

illegal helpers. Nor does Martinez’s argument that the illegal helpers were not 

induced or encouraged to reside in the United States because they were already 

residing in the country have any merit. Several rehired illegal helpers testified 

that they remained in the United States to improve their livelihoods and their 

families’ financial positions, and that working at WMI helped accomplish these

goals.8

Martinez’s sufficiency challenges to the substantive offenses are also 

without merit. Because Martinez was charged with aiding and abetting in 

these offenses, the Government need not establish that Martinez “actually 

completed each specific act charged in the indictment” but only that he assisted 

in the actual perpetration of the offense “while sharing the requisite criminal 

intent.” United States v. Rivera, 295 F.3d 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2002). Evidence 

 

8 Though the issue has not been directly addressed by this circuit, other circuits have 

rejected arguments that a conviction under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) cannot be sustained where the 

illegal aliens in question already resided in the United States at the time of the alleged 

wrongful encouragement or inducement occurred. See, e.g., Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 

1276, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133, 136–138 (4th Cir. 

1993).

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

15

that supports a conspiracy conviction “is generally sufficient to support an 

aiding and abetting conviction as well.” Jiminez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d at 535 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

We hold that there is sufficient evidence to sustain Martinez’s 

convictions for encouraging or inducing the illegally rehired helpers to reside 

in the United States. As outlined above, several of the illegal helpers 

specifically identified Martinez and other WMI managers as either directing 

them to Flores to procure new identification for employment at WMI, or 

encouraging them to get a “good Social Security number.” Further, Martinez 

knew that each of the individuals he encouraged to secure valid identification 

documents were illegal aliens; this fact was not only “common knowledge” but 

was also the driving force behind the creation and execution of the scheme. 

This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that Martinez “associated with 

the criminal venture, participated in it and sought by his actions to make the 

venture succeed” and therefore supports his convictions for aiding and abetting 

in the commission of the crimes charged in Counts 4–13. Jiminez-Elvirez, 862 

F.3d at 535. 

C. Aiding and Abetting Aggravated Identity Theft

The aggravated identity theft statute provides: “Whoever, during and in 

relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c) knowingly 

transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of 

identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided 

for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A. The list of offenses enumerated in subsection (c) of the statute 

includes the immigration crimes for which Martinez was convicted under 

Counts 1–13 of the Superseding Indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(10). To 

convict Martinez of aggravated identity theft, the Government was required to 

prove that Martinez “(1) knowingly used (2) the means of identification of 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

16

another person (3) without lawful authority (4) during and in relation to [the 

crimes connected with Counts 1–13].” See United States v. Carbins, 882 F.3d 

557, 563 (5th Cir. 2018). The term “means of identification” is defined as “any 

name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other 

information, to identify a specific individual.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7) (emphasis 

added). This includes any name, social security number, or date of birth. Id. § 

1028(d)(7)(A). The Government was required “to show that [Martinez] knew 

that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.” Carbins, 

882 F.3d at 563–64 (quoting Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 

657 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] person is liable under [18 

U.S.C. § 2] for aiding and abetting a crime if (and only if) he (1) takes an 

affirmative act in furtherance of the offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating 

the offense’s commission.” Id. at 564 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

Martinez argues he neither possessed nor transferred any other person’s 

identification documents because all identifying information was in the 

exclusive possession of AMI and Flores. The evidence produced at trial 

supports this assertion: the Government did not present evidence implicating 

Martinez as having directly provided Social Security cards or other 

identification information to rehired helpers. Rather, the evidence identifies 

Flores as having assigned the rehired illegal helpers with the identities of 

former applicants and legal employees.

Even so, the evidence implicating Flores as having assigned identities to 

rehired helpers, and the testimony identifying Martinez as having transferred 

PINs linked to the former legal employees and applicants to the rehired illegal 

helpers, demonstrate that “Martinez associated with the criminal venture [of 

aggravated identity theft], participated in it and sought by his actions to make 

the venture succeed.” Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d at 535. This evidence, along 

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-20230

17

with the seeming concession (and supporting testimony of Flores and Santiago) 

that Martinez at a minimum played a large role in devising the plan to reassign 

legal identification documents to rehired illegal helpers, establishes that 

Martinez aided and abetted in the commission of aggravated identity theft 

with the requisite criminal intent, although he did not himself directly handle 

any of the victims’ identification documents. Flores’s and Santiago’s testimony 

that Martinez created the plan also undercuts his argument that Flores may 

have assigned fictitious names and identities to the rehired helpers. Martinez 

specifically suggested that Flores and Santiago use the valid documents of 

former employees and applicants (and even gathered some former driver logs 

that identified the names of former employees and applicants). 

Because of all the evidence cementing Martinez as central to the 

identification-assignment scheme, and because the Government did not need 

to prove that Martinez was in physical possession of the identity theft victims’ 

identification information to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting 

aggravated identity theft, we hold that “a reasonable juror could conclude that 

the elements of the crime [of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft] 

were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evans, 892 F.3d at 702. 

III. CONCLUSION

The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support Martinez’s 

conviction. His conviction and sentence are therefore AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-20230 Document: 00514610328 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/21/2018