1

16-0344(L) 

United States v. Reyes

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

3 

4 SUMMARY ORDER

5 

6 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER 

7 FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

8 APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY 

9 ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 

10 OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ‘SUMMARY ORDER’). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY 

11 ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

12 

13 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

14 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

15 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

13th 16 day of January, two thousand seventeen. 

17 

18 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

19 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

20 Circuit Judges, 

21 KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, 

22 District Judge.* 

23 

24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

25 

26 United States, 

27 Appellee, 

28 

29 -v.- 16-0344(L) 

30 16-739(con) 

31 Ronaldo Reyes, 

32 Defendant-Appellant. 

33 

34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

35 

 

* Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting 

by designation.
2

1 FOR APPELLANT: Benjamin W. Hill, Dreyer Boyajian 

2 LLP, Albany, NY. 

3 

4 FOR APPELLEE: Douglas G.N. Collyer, Paul D. 

5 Silver, Assistant United States 

6 Attorneys, for Richard S. 

7 Hartunian, United States Attorney 

8 for the Northern District of New 

9 York, Albany, NY. 

10 

11 Appeal from a final order of the United States District Court 

12 for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.). 

13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 

14 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. 

15 

16 Ronaldo Reyes appeals from a judgment of conviction entered 

17 in the United States District Court for the Northern District 

18 of New York (Scullin, J.). Reyes was convicted after a jury trial 

19 of one count of conspiring to bring and seven counts of bringing 

20 aliens to the United States unlawfully for the purpose of 

21 commercial advantage and private financial gain, in violation 

22 of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). He was sentenced principally to a 60-month 

23 term of imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

24 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

25 presented for review. 

26 1. Reyes was convicted for his role in smuggling aliens 

27 on several dates. Reyes argues that his conviction on Counts 

28 Three through Six, which relate to one instance of smuggling 

29 four aliens, should be vacated because the only evidence 

30 regarding his financial incentives was the testimony of a single 

31 witness who could not testify that Reyes was paid or otherwise 

32 committed the offense for commercial advantage or financial 

33 gain. 

34 “We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de 

35 novo,” but while “view[ing] the evidence in the light most 

36 favorable to the government, drawing all inferences in the 

37 government’s favor and deferring to the jury’s assessments of 

38 the witnesses’ credibility.” United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 

39 832, 837-38 (2d Cir. 2015). “[T]he evidence must be viewed in 
3

1 conjunction, not in isolation,” United States v. Persico, 645 

2 F.3d 85, 104 (2d Cir. 2011), and “[w]e will sustain the jury’s 

3 verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the 

4 essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

5 Pierce, 785 F.3d at 838 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

6 The evidence that Reyes was paid for the particular 

7 smuggling charged in Counts Three through Six was 

8 circumstantial; but taking it together, and viewing it in the 

9 light most favorable to the government, there is enough for a 

10 rational trier of fact to convict. Cooperating witness Clarisa 

11 Gil-Corcino, who pleaded guilty to her role in the smuggling 

12 in question, testified that: (1) Reyes had told Gil-Corcino that 

13 he and his uncle were in the alien smuggling business and split 

14 the profits; (2) one of the illegally transported aliens had 

15 asked Gil-Corcino if she could find someone to transport her; 

16 (3) Gil-Corcino asked Reyes what it would cost; (4) Reyes quoted 

17 a price; and (5) Reyes offered to pay Gil-Corcino to pick up 

18 aliens when they had made it across the border. Gil-Corcino 

19 agreed and was caught in the act. A rational jury would be 

20 entitled to credit that testimony and, considering its totality, 

21 could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aliens Gil-Corcino 

22 picked up on the date charged in Counts Three through Six were 

23 sent by Reyes, who had arranged their transport for profit as 

24 part of a pattern of alien smuggling that provided sufficient 

25 funds for Reyes to pay Gil-Corcino for her role. 

26 2. Reyes argues that hearsay testimony elicited at trial 

27 violated his Sixth Amendment rights and deprived him of a fair 

28 trial. The testimony in question was not admitted, but was 

29 erroneously elicited and subsequently stricken. The government 

30 asked Gil-Corcino, “And [Reyes] got paid, right?” J.A. 184. 

31 The district judge overruled Reyes’s objection, and Gil-Corcino 

32 began to answer, “Yes, the illegals,” before the district judge 

33 inquired into the basis for that testimony, realized it was 

34 hearsay, and struck the question and the answer. J.A. 184-85. 

35 The government concedes it was error to elicit Gil-Corcino’s 

36 answer, which she could provide only on the basis of statements 

37 by third parties. Her brief response was not received in 

38 evidence, however: it was immediately stricken, it was not 

39 mentioned again, and the jury was instructed to disregard 
4

1 stricken testimony. Juries are generally presumed to “follow 

2 the instructions they are given.” United States v. Agrawal, 726 

3 F.3d 235, 258 (2d Cir. 2013). The evidence was easily sufficient 

4 to sustain the conviction without Gil-Corcino’s interrupted 

5 response to the government’s improper question. Reyes and the 

6 government dispute whether the issue was sufficiently raised 

7 in the district court, and therefore whether review is for plain 

8 error, but in any event the stricken answer did not deprive Reyes 

9 of a fair trial. 

10 3. The district court admitted into evidence photographs 

11 taken by a “Buckeye Cam” infrared camera placed in the woods 

12 near the border. Reyes argues that the district court abused 

13 its discretion because the images are of poor quality and lack 

14 probative value, and because the Border Patrol Agent through 

15 whose testimony the photographs were introduced could not 

16 testify as to the camera’s precise location, or as to its 

17 technological features. 

18 Our review of the decision to admit such evidence “is highly 

19 deferential in recognition of the district court’s superior 

20 position to assess” it. United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220, 

21 244 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotations marks omitted). We will only 

22 reverse the district court’s ruling as an abuse of discretion 

23 if it “was arbitrary and irrational.” Id. We find no error in 

24 this case. 

25 The testimony about the camera’s placement and functioning 

26 was sufficient to lay a foundation for the photographs’ 

27 admission. Reyes presents no argument that the images are 

28 anything other than what they purport to be. If their grainy 

29 quality or vagueness about the camera’s precise location 

30 impaired the probative value of the images, their potential to 

31 prejudice Reyes would be correspondingly reduced. He presents 

32 no plausible argument that he was unfairly prejudiced or deprived 

33 of a fair trial because of their admission. 

34 

35 

36 
5

1 Accordingly, and finding no merit in appellants’ other 

2 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

5