Opinion ID: 2817026
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Transporting an Alien within the United States

Text: A conviction for knowingly transporting an alien within the United States for commercial advantage or private financial gain requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an alien had entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law; (2) that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the alien was in the United States in violation of the law; (3) that the defendant transported the alien within the United States with intent to further the alien’s unlawful presence; and (4) that the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 6 3 Chon, 713 F.3d at 818. 4Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)). 5 United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 990 (5th Cir. 1990). 6 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 1324 (a)(1)(B)(i). 4 Case: 13-40826 Document: 00513115094 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 No. 13-40826 Cabrera presents two challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on the two substantive counts. First, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the second element— whether he knew he was transporting illegal immigrants. Next, Cabrera argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the fourth element— that he received money for transporting the immigrants. Turning first to the knowledge element, the trial testimony from two material witnesses, Valdivia and Delgado—two Mexican nationals who had no legal right to enter the United States—establishes that they each paid money to be smuggled across the border and through the Border Patrol checkpoint in a tractor-trailer. Valdivia and Delgado were driven to a secluded road on the outskirts of McAllen, Texas and told to board Cabrera’s tractor-trailer. At trial, both Valdivia and Delgado identified Cabrera’s tractor-trailer. The government also presented evidence establishing that Cabrera was nervous when questioned by the Border Patrol agents, and that Cabrera did not take the most direct route to Houston, but instead went out of his way to Laredo, Texas. We conclude based on this circumstantial evidence that a rational trier of fact could infer that Cabrera knew there were persons in his trailer and that he knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that those persons were unlawfully present in the United States. Moving to the financial gain element, the government presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational jury to conclude that Cabrera acted for financial gain. None of the immigrants Cabrera transported had any personal relationship with Cabrera. Valdivia and Delgado paid approximately $2,500 to be smuggled across the border and transported to Houston. When he was arrested, Cabrera had approximately $500 in his pocket. A nonpecuniary reason for Cabrera’s transportation of these immigrants never came 5 Case: 13-40826 Document: 00513115094 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 No. 13-40826 to light. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could find that Cabrera transported the illegal immigrants for financial gain. 7 We conclude that a rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ii. Conspiracy to Transport an Illegal Alien Within the United States To obtain a conspiracy conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), the government must establish: (1) that the defendant and at least one other person made an agreement to commit the crime of transporting an alien within the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (2) that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) that the defendant joined in the agreement willfully. 8 In order to sustain a conspiracy conviction, we must find that a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that “an agreement existed to violate the law and each conspirator knew of, intended to join, and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy.” 9 “The agreement to violate the law does not have to be ‘explicit or formal;’ a tacit agreement is sufficient.” 10 The existence of an agreement may be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred 7 See United States v. Pineda-Jimenez, 212 F. App’x 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2007) (personal relationship with the transporter is one factor considered for inferring an agreement); See also United States v. Allende-Garcia, 407 F. App’x 829, 834 (5th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases) (evidence establishing that money was paid to someone in the smuggling operation and that the defendant participated in the operation and did not have a non-pecuniary explanation for his conduct is sufficient evidence to support a finding of financial gain); United States v. Aviles, 313 F. App’x 964, 966 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant “does not claim he either knew or was related to the aliens in his truck, which supports the reasonable inference that he sought financial gain for transporting them.”). 8United States v. Granadeno, 2015 WL 1260436,  (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2015)(quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i)). 9 United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 354 (5th Cir. 2000). 10 Chon, 713 F.3d at 818 (citation omitted). 6 Case: 13-40826 Document: 00513115094 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 No. 13-40826 from a “concert of action” between the conspirators. 11 “Association or presence can be sufficient to prove knowing participation in the agreement if combined with other supporting circumstantial evidence. A jury may find knowledgeable, voluntary participation from presence when it would be unreasonable for anyone other than a knowledgeable participant to be present.” 12 We disagree with Cabrera’s argument that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he agreed with one or more persons to transport illegal aliens for private financial gain. Border Patrol apprehended four drivers associated with Tiger Express for smuggling illegal aliens, within a four month period. In committing these crimes, the drivers used trailers registered to other Tiger Express employees. For example, the government submitted evidence establishing that Rodriguez, the Vice President of Tiger Express, smuggled thirteen illegal immigrants in Cabrera’s trailer. Moreover, the material witnesses described almost identical circumstances surrounding their border crossing and transportation by the Tiger Express drivers. The evidence establishes that all the immigrants were driven from a group of similar stash houses in McAllen, Texas to a secluded road. The driver delivering them to the pickup location told the aliens to hide in the brush until a tractor-trailer arrived. Once the truck stopped on the road, the immigrants were told to jump in the trailer and hide. These witnesses also described the pickup spot as being open on one side with a tree line on the other. The similar circumstances surrounding the different transportations supports an inference of an agreement between the Tiger Express employees 11 Id. (citation omitted). 12 United States v. Martinez, 190 F.3d 673, 676 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). 7 Case: 13-40826 Document: 00513115094 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 No. 13-40826 and the smugglers delivering the aliens. Finally, the most direct path to Houston would not have been via Laredo and would not have included the secluded road. Viewing all of this evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, a jury could reasonably infer that Cabrera agreed with one or more persons to commit the crime of transporting an alien within the United States.