Court Opinion

ID: 9396263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 00:00:24.778911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.712325
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51163         Document: 00516756981             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-51163
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 May 19, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Walter Raul Maguina,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-2607-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Walter Raul Maguina appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
   transport aliens and transportation of aliens. He argues that the district court
   abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his 2018 conviction for
   transportation of aliens. He also asserts that a limited remand is required
   because the district court did not properly articulate its findings on the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51163      Document: 00516756981              Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                        No. 21-51163

   applicable balancing test for the admission of such evidence. We disagree and
   AFFIRM.
                                    *        *         *
          Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, extrinsic evidence of other
   crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible as proof of character but may be
   admitted to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
   knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R.
   Evid. 404(b)(2); see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1); United States v. Cockrell,
   587 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). We determine whether evidence was
   properly admitted under Rule 404(b) by applying the two-prong test
   provided in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
   See United States v. Juarez, 866 F.3d 622, 627 (5th Cir. 2017). Under prong
   one, the extrinsic evidence of a past offense must be “relevant to an issue
   other than the defendant’s character.” Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911. Under
   prong two, “the evidence must possess probative value that is not
   substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice and must meet the other
   requirements of [Federal Rule of Evidence] 403.” Id. Where, as here, a
   defendant timely objects to a district court’s ruling to admit evidence under
   Rule 404(b), we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hays, 872
   F.2d 582, 587 (5th Cir. 1989).
          Maguina does not challenge the relevance of the evidence of his prior
   conviction. We thus turn to the second prong of the Beechum test, which
   requires us to assess several factors, including: “(1) the government’s need
   for the extrinsic evidence, (2) the similarity between the extrinsic and
   charged offenses, (3) the amount of time separating the two offenses, and (4)
   the court’s limiting instructions.” Juarez, 866 F.3d at 627 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Because we must make a “commonsense
   assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense,” no

                                             2
Case: 21-51163      Document: 00516756981            Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                      No. 21-51163

   one factor is dispositive. Beechum, 582 F.2d at 914. Additionally, the overall
   prejudicial effect of the extrinsic evidence is considered. See Juarez, 866 F.3d
   at 629–30. We look to whether the prior conviction was “of a heinous
   nature,” and whether the evidence of such conviction was “likely to incite
   the jury to an irrational decision,” “cumulative,” or “tend[ed] to confuse
   the issues, mislead the jury or cause undue delay.” United States v. McMahon,
   592 F.2d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Fed. R. Evid. 403.
          Maguina is unable to establish that evidence of his 2018 conviction for
   transportation of aliens was inadmissible under prong two of the Beechum
   test. First, the Government had a need for extrinsic evidence to prove intent,
   knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake because Maguina asserted lack of
   knowledge in his defense, claiming he was a taxi driver merely helping a
   member of the clergy who worked with refugees. Second, the 2018 case was
   similar to this case, and the dissimilar facts that Maguina points to are directly
   connected to Maguina’s involvement in alien smuggling in 2018 and
   therefore “significant . . . [to] the purpose of the inquiry at hand.” United
   States v. Valenzuela, 57 F.4th 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding no abuse of
   discretion to admit Rule 404(b) evidence in trial for drug smuggling, even
   where there were some different aspects in prior drug smuggling conviction).
   Third, Maguina concedes that the amount of time separating the offenses
   does not weigh in favor of a finding of undue prejudice. Finally, the limiting
   instructions given by the court were sufficient as we have held that even less
   extensive limiting instructions are sufficient to mitigate a jury’s improper use
   of Rule 404(b) evidence. See Valenzuela, 57 F.4th at 523. Moreover, there are
   no aspects of the evidence, nor the presentation of it, that could have misled
   or incited the jury. See McMahon, 592 F.2d at 876. Therefore, the risk of
   unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the

                                           3
Case: 21-51163      Document: 00516756981            Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                      No. 21-51163

   evidence of the 2018 conviction. The district court did not abuse its
   discretion in admitting such evidence. See Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
          Finally, Maguina says this case must be remanded because the district
   court failed to address the prejudicial nature of the extrinsic evidence. In
   assessing this argument, we must confirm that the district court “engage[d]
   in the proper Beechum analysis and that this analysis is sufficiently apparent
   for purposes of appellate review.” United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1401
   (5th Cir. 1991). The district court “must articulate on the record its findings
   as to the Beechum probative value/prejudice evaluation” when formally
   requested by a party. Id. A mere objection to the admission of Rule 404(b)
   evidence—even with an argument addressing the prejudice prong—does not
   rise to the level of a formal request. Id. at 1402–03. If the district court fails
   to respond to this request and make the proper record, we must order a
   limited remand for the district court to properly and explicitly engage in the
   Beechum probative value/prejudice evaluation. Id. at 1402. However, this
   remand requirement does not apply if “the factors upon which the probative
   value/prejudice evaluation were [sic] made are readily apparent from the
   record, and there is no substantial uncertainty about the correctness of the
   ruling.” United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1983).
          Here, Maguina’s invocations and objections concerning the prejudice
   prong were not formal requests for a Beechum finding. See Osum, 943 F.2d at
   1402–03. Moreover, “there is no substantial uncertainty about the
   correctness of the ruling.” Robinson, 700 F.2d at 213. The district court was
   presented with the parties’ arguments on this issue, the court understood the
   requirements of Rule 404(b), and the “factors contributing to the probative
   value/prejudice determination are . . . evident from the record.” Osum, 943
   F.2d at 1403. Accordingly, no remand is required.
                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                           4