Opinion ID: 2676152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smuggling an Alien for Financial Gain

Text: To sustain a conviction of smuggling an alien for financial gain, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) knowingly brought an alien into the United States; (2) knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to or enter the United States; and (3) participated in the smuggling for private financial gain. United States v. Dominguez, 661 F.3d 1051, 1063-64, 1066 (11th Cir. 2011); see 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). “To act with ‘reckless disregard’ means to be aware of, but consciously and carelessly ignore, facts and circumstances clearly indicating that the person transported [had not received prior official authorization to come to or enter the United States].” See United States v. Perez, 443 F.3d 772, 781 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted) (defining “reckless” disregard for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), proscribing unlawfully transporting illegal aliens). We conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain Bowleg’s four convictions (Counts 1 through 4) for smuggling an alien for financial gain. First, the trial testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, showed that Bowleg knowingly brought thirteen aliens into the United States. 20 Case: 12-15797 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 21 of 36 Specifically, the evidence showed that Bowleg (1) was on the boat with Pratt at the time it picked up the thirteen aliens from the beach; (2) operated the boat with Pratt’s assistance; (3) navigated the boat towards its destination, West Palm Beach, Florida, using a GPS-device; (4) monitored the waters and sky with binoculars; (5) refueled the boat when it ran out of gasoline; (6) received text messages from Chris, an organizer of the smuggling offense, telling Bowleg to “check the sky”; (7) told Pinke, Bowleg’s girlfriend, that Bowleg would see her “tomorrow,” suggesting that he was not a passenger on the boat, as he planned to return to the Bahamas on May 6 and not remain in the United States like the thirteen passenger aliens; and (8) gave inconsistent statements to agents, stating both that Chris paid Bowleg to assist Pratt in transporting a group of aliens to the United States and that Bowleg paid Chris for transportation to the United States. Further, at trial, Bowleg admitted that he knew that all of the aliens lacked authorization to enter the United States because they otherwise would not have traveled on the motorboat, but would have arranged different transportation. And, the trial testimony also showed that four of the thirteen aliens on the boat each paid $3,000 to $7,000 for transportation to the United States and that Bowleg had $1,000 in U.S. currency in his inventoried possessions. In one of Bowleg’s statements to agents, he admitted that Chris paid him $1,000 to transport the aliens 21 Case: 12-15797 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 22 of 36 to the United States. Based on this evidence, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Bowleg participated in alien smuggling for financial gain. Bowleg points to his testimony at trial as evidence of his innocence. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Bowleg’s testimony and believe that the opposite of what Bowleg said was true. United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995) (providing that “a statement by a defendant, if disbelieved by the jury, may be considered as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt” because a jury, after hearing a defendant’s “words and seeing his demeanor, was entitled to disbelieve [the defendant’s] testimony and, in fact, to believe the opposite of what [the defendant] said”). Even if Bowleg’s testimony is not substantive evidence of his guilt, his statement merely contradicted the government’s evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses was an issue for the jury to decide. And, there was ample evidence of guilt from the government’s witnesses alone. B. Aiding or Assisting an Alien Convicted of an Aggravated Felony Enter the United States To sustain a conviction of aiding or assisting an alien convicted of an aggravated felony enter the United States, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) “knowingly aid[ed] or assist[ed]” an alien enter the United States; (2) knew that the alien was inadmissible; and (3) the alien was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1327; see United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 22 Case: 12-15797 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 23 of 36 1254 (11th Cir. 2009). Importantly, the government must prove only that the defendant knew that the alien was inadmissible, not that the alien was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2) for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. See Lopez, 590 F.3d at 1254 (“We first conclude that the district court properly instructed the jury that § 1327 did not require [the defendant] to know that the alien on board had a prior felony conviction but only that the alien he aided or assisted in entering the United States was inadmissible.”). Undocumented aliens are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7). Section 1182(a)(7) provides that an immigrant who “is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document . . . is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Bowleg’s conviction for aiding and assisting an alien convicted of an aggravated felony enter the United States (Count 6). One of the aliens on board the boat was Richard Manuel Encarnacion-Perez who had been convicted of conspiracy to possess 50 kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and armed robbery. Based on Bowleg’s role in piloting the boat, discussed above, we have little difficulty concluding that a reasonable jury could have found that Bowleg “knowingly aid[ed] or assist[ed]” Encarnacion-Perez enter the United States. And, Encarnacion-Perez’s convictions made him inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2), for having been convicted of an 23 Case: 12-15797 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 24 of 36 aggravated felony. Although the evidence does not show that Bowleg knew that Encarnacion-Perez was an aggravated felon, such knowledge is not required for us to sustain Bowleg’s conviction on Count 6. Rather, all that is needed is evidence that Bowleg knew that Encarnacion-Perez was inadmissible to the United States. As noted above, Bowleg admitted at trial that all of the aliens on the boat, including Encarnacion-Perez, lacked documentation to allow them entry into the United States. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to show that Bowleg had knowledge of the facts that showed that Encarnacion-Perez was inadmissible under § 1181(a)(7). Bowleg also argues that the evidence was insufficient as to Count 6 because his acquittal on Count 5, for conspiracy to allow, procure, and permit an alien convicted of an aggravated felony to enter the United States, was inconsistent with the jury’s finding of guilty on Count 6. We have stated, however, that “aiding [and] abetting . . . are not terms that presuppose the existence of an agreement. Those terms have a broader application, making the defendant a principal when he consciously shares in the criminal act, regardless of the existence of a conspiracy.” United States v. Nelson, 599 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 1979). Even assuming, arguendo, that the verdicts were inconsistent. Nevertheless, we reject Bowleg’s argument because a guilty verdict must stand if it is supported by sufficient evidence, even where there is an inconsistent verdict on another count. See United 24 Case: 12-15797 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 25 of 36 States v. Mitchell, 146 F.3d 1338, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that jury verdicts are “insulated from review” on the ground that they are inconsistent).