FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR27 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plain ti ff-Appellee, 

V. 

CATARINO SANTA CRUZLOZANO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 04-2138 

(D.C. No. CR 03-1713 JC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

Catarina Santa Cruz-Lozano appeals his convictions on two counts of 

transporting an illegal alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), 

(a)( I )(B)(i), and (a)(l)(A)(v)(II). He argues on appeal that the district court erred 

in instructing the jury. We disagree and AFFIRM his convictions. 

• The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument 

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). This order and 

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of 

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the 

terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 1
At trial the government presented evidence that Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Agents found Cruz-Lozano, an undocumented alien, driving a truck 

containing twelve other undocumented aliens near the Mexican border in New 

Mexico. According to government witnesses, Cruz-Lozano guided the aliens on 

foot in Mexico across the border into the United States, left them to get the truck, 

and then drove the aliens in the truck within the United States. Cruz-Lozano 

testified that another alien, named Alfredo, drove the truck until he spotted the 

agents. At that point, according to the defendant, Alfredo claimed to be tired and 

asked Cruz-Lozano to take over driving. The defendant agreed, and moments 

later the agents pulled over the truck. 

After the presentation of evidence, the district court instructed the jury in 

relevant part as follows: 

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), makes it a 

crime for anyone to transport an alien within the United States, knowing or 

in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien is here illegally, and in 

furtherance of the alien's violation of the law. 

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be 

convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a 

reasonable doubt: 

First: 

Second: 

Third: 

That an alien had entered or remained in the 

United States in violation of the law; 

That the defendant transported the alien within the 

United States with intent to further the alien's 

unlawful presence; 

That the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded 

the fact that the alien was in the United States in 

violation of the law .... 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 2
A defendant acts in furtherance of the alien's unlawful status 

regardless of profit motive or close relationship, with knowledge or with 

reckless disregard of the fact that the person transported is an illegal alien 

and that transportation or movement of the alien will help, advance, or 

promote the alien's illegal entry or continued illegal presence in the United 

States. One indication of furthering an alien's unlawful status is to assist 

the aliens in evading immigration authorities by relocating them to a city 

much farther from the United States Mexico border. 

You may consider any and all relevant evidence bearing on the in 

furtherance of element including time, place, distance, reason for trip, 

overall impact of trip, and defendant's role in organizing and/ or carrying 

out the trip. 

Having preserved his objection to this instruction, Cruz-Lozano now 

appeals. We review jury instructions "de novo to determine whether, as a whole, 

the instructions correctly state the governing law and provide the jury with an 

ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards." United States v. 

Wittgenstein, 163 F.3d 1164, 1168 (10th Cir. 1998). We review a district court's 

decision to give a particular instruction for an abuse of discretion, United States 

v. McPhilomy. 270 F.3d 1302, 1310 (10th Cir. 2001), and will reverse only ifwe 

have "substantial doubt that the jury was fairly guided." United States v. Pappert, 

I 12 F.3d 1073, 1076 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). 

On appeal, Cruz-Lozano challenges the following portion of the instruction: 

A defendant acts in furtherance of the alien's unlawful status 

regardless of profit motive or close relationship, with knowledge or 

with reckless disregard of the fact that the person transported is an 

illegal alien and that transportation or movement of the alien will 

help, advance, or promote the alien's illegal entry or continued 

illegal presence in the United States. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 3
He argues that profit motive was not at issue in this case, and therefore this 

language "served to mislead the jury so as to associate Santa Cruz' defense with 

that of transporting not for profit or a close relationship. However, Santa Cruz' 

defense was that he was induced by trickery." (Appellant's Br. at 15). First, this 

instruction correctly states the governing law. In United States v. 

Barajas-Chavez, 162 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 1999) (en bane) we held: 

[T]he [ in furtherance] element is sufficiently broad to encompass any 

person who acts, regardless of profit motive or close relationship, 

with knowledge or with reckless disregard of the fact that the person 

transported is an illegal alien and that transportation or movement of 

the alien will help, advance, or promote the alien's illegal entry or 

continued illegal presence in the United States. 

Id. at 1288. Moreover, the inclusion of this language in the jury instruction did 

not prevent the jury from considering Cruz-Lozano's defense: that the reason he 

was driving the truck is because he was deceived by the person truly responsible 

for transporting the aliens into and within the United States. The court included 

the following language in the instruction, which left ample room for the jury to 

weigh the defense: "You may consider any and all relevant evidence bearing on 

the in furtherance of element including time, place, distance, reason for trip. 

overall impact of trip, and defendant's role in organizing and/or carrying out the 

trip." This portion of the instruction also correctly states the governing law. See 

Barajas-Chavez, 162 F .3d at 1289 ("a factfinder may consider any and all relevant 

evidence bearing on the 'in furtherance of' element (time, place, distance, reason 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 4
for trip, overall impact of trip, defendant's role in organizing and/or carrying out 

the trip)."). 

Cruz-Lozano objects that "by instructing the jury that 'regardless of profit 

motive,' the jury was lead [sic] to believe that even if Santa Cruz was not driving 

for profit, he was still acting 'in furtherance."' That is a correct statement of the 

law. The jury "may consider any and all relevant evidence" and determine 

whether a defendant was acting "in furtherance" of an alien's unlawful status. Id. 

That is precisely what the jury did in this case. We do not have "substantial doubt 

that the jury was fairly guided." Pappert, 112 F.3d at 1076. 

We AFFIRM Cruz-Lozano's convictions. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-2138 Document: 010110614734 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 6