IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________ 

No. 18-41047

Summary Calendar

___________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

EDDIE VAN GREEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant

_______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-294-1

_______________________ 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:∗

Eddie Van Green, Jr. appeals his jury convictions and sentences for one 

count of conspiracy to transport an undocumented alien and five counts of 

transporting an undocumented alien for financial gain. Green contends that 

the trial evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew of the presence or 

alienage of 35 undocumented persons discovered in his trailer at a border 

checkpoint, that he had the requisite intent to form a conspiracy to transport 

 

* 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

September 19, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41047 Document: 00515124492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2019
No. 18-41047

2

undocumented aliens, or that he sought to profit or gain financially from his 

endeavor. We affirm.

Green’s sufficiency arguments overlook the rule that the trial evidence 

must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and need not “exclude every reasonable 

hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except 

that of guilt...,” United States v. Lewis, 774 F.3d 837, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on the combined 

testimony of the Government’s witnesses, the jury could reasonably infer that 

Green both knew the aliens were in his trailer and knew of or recklessly 

disregarded their unlawful status. See United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 

818-19 (5th Cir. 2013). And it was free to discredit Green’s implicit claim that 

35 aliens were discreetly loaded into his trailer while he napped unaware. See 

United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d, 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008). Because the jury’s 

construction of the evidence was reasonable, see United States v. Meza, 701 

F.3d 411, 422-23 (5th Cir. 2012), its findings that Green was a knowing 

participant in the alien transport conspiracy and that he knowingly

transported undocumented aliens were not irrational, see United States v. 

Lopez-Urbina, 434 F.3d 750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005).

Furthermore, notwithstanding the absence of direct evidence of financial 

motive, the jury could “reasonably infer [Green’s] financial purpose from the 

quantum of the Government’s circumstantial proof.” United States v. Garcia, 

888 F.3d 570, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2006 (2018); see 8 U.S.C. § 

1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Jurors could reasonably infer both that Green did not 

previously know the individuals being smuggled and that others in the same 

smuggling operation had received or would receive money for their efforts. See 

United States v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 890 F.3d 202, 210 (5th Cir. 2018); Garcia 883 

 Case: 18-41047 Document: 00515124492 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2019
No. 18-41047

3

F.3d at 576. Thus, their finding that Green acted with a financial motive was 

not irrational. See Lopez-Urbina, 434 F.3d at 757.

The evidence suffices to support the verdicts in this case. The judgment 

is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-41047 Document: 00515124492 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/19/2019