Court Opinion

ID: 9397579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 17:06:56.494906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.944115
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40192         Document: 00516763820             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/25/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                      ____________                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                       No. 22-40192                                   May 25, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kevin Michael Jefferson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:20-CR-1921-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          On October 7, 2020, during a commercial inspection of the vehicle at
   the United States Border Patrol checkpoint north of Laredo, Texas, United
   States Border Patrol agents discovered approximately 100 illegal aliens in the
   back of the tractor-trailer truck driven by Kevin Michael Jefferson. Jefferson
   was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to transport an illegal alien

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40192      Document: 00516763820           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                     No. 22-40192

   within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(I);
   he was sentenced within the guidelines range to 100 months of imprisonment
   and three years of supervised release. He raises two challenges on appeal,
   arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that
   the district court erred by admitting certain extrinsic evidence under Federal
   Rule of Evidence 404(b).
          With respect to his sufficiency challenge, Jefferson’s sole argument is
   that the Government failed to prove that he agreed with another person to
   commit the offense. Because he preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of
   the evidence by moving for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient
   evidence at the close of the Government’s case, which was the close of all
   evidence, his claim is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d
   626, 630 (5th Cir. 2018); Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. On de novo review, we
   determine whether “after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences
   in the light most favorable to the [Government], any rational trier of fact
   could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
   doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (en banc) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in
   original). The question on appeal is not whether the jury’s verdict was
   correct but whether it was rational. United States v. Lopez-Urbina, 434 F.3d
   750, 757 (5th Cir. 2005).
          The jury’s verdict was rational.          There was testimony by an
   eyewitness, corroborated by cellphone video, that Jefferson spoke with a
   driver who dropped off an alien who then boarded the trailer; testimony by a
   witness that he and Jefferson were recruited by the same individual to
   transport illegal aliens; and testimony by one of the aliens found on the trailer
   that he was brought to the trailer by smugglers and witnessed Jefferson close
   the trailer door. From this evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred
   that Jefferson knowingly agreed, either expressly or tacitly, with one or more

                                              2
Case: 22-40192      Document: 00516763820           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                     No. 22-40192

   other people to transport illegal aliens within the United States.           See
   § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d at 301-02.            Jefferson’s
   “presence, association, and concerted action with others” involved in alien
   smuggling, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was
   sufficient to establish the conspiracy element. United States v. Jimenez-
   Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 533-34 (5th Cir. 2017).
          As for Jefferson’s challenge to the admission of certain extrinsic
   evidence—testimony by a Border Patrol Agent regarding a September 19,
   2020, incident, during which the agent found 11 undocumented aliens hiding
   in the trailer compartment of a truck, and Jefferson present in the cab
   compartment of the same truck—we review the district court’s evidentiary
   ruling for abuse of discretion, subject to harmless-error analysis. See United
   States v. Girod, 646 F.3d 304, 318 (5th Cir. 2011). Evidence of extrinsic acts
   is admissible under Rule 404(b) only if it is relevant to an issue other than the
   defendant’s character and it possesses probative value that is not
   substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. See United States v. Beechum,
   582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
   However, as a threshold matter, because evidence of a prior bad act is only
   conditionally relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b), we must first
   “ascertain whether the jury was presented with sufficient evidence that the
   putative bad act actually occurred.” United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752
   F.3d 418, 423 (5th Cir. 2014).
          Jefferson challenges the relevancy of the evidence under Federal Rule
   of Evidence 104(b), without addressing the relevancy of the evidence under
   Rule 404(b). Even assuming that the evidence was erroneously admitted,
   given that there is ample evidence supporting Jefferson’s guilt and that the
   error does not appear to have substantially influenced the jury’s verdict, any
   error was harmless. See United States v. Flores, 640 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir.

                                              3
Case: 22-40192   Document: 00516763820         Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                No. 22-40192

   2011); United States v. Girod, 646 F.3d 304, 318 (5th Cir. 2011). The
   judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         4