Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Miguel MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-18
Citations: 304 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 08-50205
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Miguel MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Miguel MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50205
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 18, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Joel Hill, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Miguel Macias appeals his conviction for assaulting a federal officer on account of the performance of his official duties in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. Macias does not dispute that he was the driver of a car that caused U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Ronald Kraft to lose control of his motorcycle or that Officer Kraft was injured in the resulting crash. Macias argues, however, that the evidence shows only that both men were negligent and that there is no evidence that Macias acted intentionally. Macias further argues that the evidence fails to show that he assaulted Officer Kraft on account of the performance of his official duties because there is no evidence that Macias was aware that Kraft was one of several Customs and Border Protection officers who searched Macias's vehicle earlier that night.
Our review of the evidence shows that a rational jury could have concluded that Macias intentionally assaulted Officer Kraft and that the assault occurred on account of the victim's performance of his official duties. See United States v. Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.