IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40597

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

LORENZO HERRERA-ISIDORO, also known as Juan Perea-Valdez,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-74-1

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lorenzo Herrera-Isidoro pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)-(b). On the other hand, he challenges his jurytrial convictions for conspiracy to transport and harbor aliens and transporting

and harboring an alien and placing the life of another in danger, in violation of

8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(A)(iii), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), (a)(1)(v)(II), and

(a)(1)(B)(iii). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 12, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40597 Document: 00511819685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2012
No. 11-40597

Herrera contends there was insufficient evidence for the convictions.

Herrera’s having preserved this issue by a motion for judgment of acquittal at

trial, review is de novo. E.g., United States v. Bennett, 664 F.3d 997, 1011 (5th

Cir. 2011). Our court will affirm “if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from

the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a

reasonable doubt”. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We do “not evaluate

the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses, but view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all reasonable

inferences to support the verdict”. Id. Review of the sufficiency of the evidence

is the same for circumstantial evidence as it is for direct evidence. United States

v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465 F.3d 596, 602 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Circumstantial evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most

favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find Herrera

guilty. Id. Trial testimony established: Herrera and “Javier” were involved in

an ongoing alien smuggling operation using a “stash house”; they arranged for

the purchase of the pickup used to transport the illegal aliens on 4 August 2009;

and one of the aliens whom they transported needed medical attention and

another died. Further, testimony placed Herrera at the scene when law

enforcement witnessed aliens fleeing from the pickup truck and his fingerprint

on the right passenger seatbelt linked him to the vehicle. Herrera’s contention

that the Government’s witnesses were not credible is unavailing. See, e.g.,

United States v. Thompson, 647 F.3d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 2011) (credibility

determinations resolved in favor of verdict). 

Herrera also contends the district court erred when it denied his motion

for a new trial because the jury foreperson allegedly had a personal grudge

against one of his lawyers. Review is for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States

v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 146, 161 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2470 (2011). 

The foreperson testified at the evidentiary hearing on Herrera’s motion that:

during voir dire she did not answer untruthfully; she did not know the lawyer

2

Case: 11-40597 Document: 00511819685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2012
No. 11-40597

before the trial began; and she was unaware that he had created a video

opposing her mother’s candidacy for local public office on behalf of her mother’s

opponent. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 160-61.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-40597 Document: 00511819685 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2012