IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40180

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMILIO PADILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-747-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emilio Padilla appeals the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts 

of being an alien unlawfully present in the United States in possession of a 

firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Although Padilla has been 

released from custody, his appeal is not moot because he challenges his 

conviction, which is presumed to have collateral consequences. See Spencer v 

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998); see also United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 

 

* 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

December 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40180 Document: 00513325195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2015
No. 15-40180

2

U.S. 579, 581 n.2 (1983) (noting that appeal not moot due to potential adverse 

immigration consequences). 

Padilla’s argument that the Government failed to prove venue is without 

merit because the jury heard testimony that the firearms were found in Alamo, 

Texas, which is in the Southern District of Texas. Cf., United States v. 

Winship, 724 F.2d 1116, 1124 (5th Cir. 1984) (recognizing that venue is 

established if the trial is in the same district as the crime’s commission). 

Padilla offered no authority, in either the district court or this court, 

disputing the immigration official’s testimony that he was in the United States 

without authorization. His argument that the Government failed to show that 

he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States is thus without merit. See

United States v. Orellana, 405 F.3d 360, 366 (5th Cir. 2005) (footnote and 

citation omitted). Moreover, this court has recognized that an alien who has 

acquired unlawful or illegal status does not relinquish that status merely 

because he is allowed to remain in the United States while an application for 

adjustment of status is pending. See United States v. Elrawy, 448 F.3d 309, 

314 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The Government established that Padilla claimed ownership of the 

firearms and admitted physically handling them, and that he had access to the 

safe in which the firearms were discovered. Based on such, a rational trier of 

fact could easily have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Padilla possessed 

the firearms. See United States v. Hagman, 740 F.3d 1044, 1048 (5th Cir. 

2014). The Government also established that the firearms were manufactured 

in Austria and that they travelled across state lines. Although the Government 

was not required to establish that the firearms were operable, it provided 

testimony supporting such a finding. See United States v. Ruiz, 986 F.2d 905, 

910 (5th Cir. 1993). 

 Case: 15-40180 Document: 00513325195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2015
No. 15-40180

3

To the extent that Padilla sought to raise the issue whether the district 

court erred in not granting a mistrial, the issue is insufficiently briefed and is 

thus waived. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40180 Document: 00513325195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2015