Court Opinion

ID: 9352601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:00:34.100265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:53.605202
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/06/2023

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

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                           January 6, 2023
                                   No. 21-40926                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Abdullah Khabir Yusuf,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:21-CR-617-1

   Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge:
          Abdullah Yusuf was stopped by Border Patrol near Laredo, Texas,
   while smuggling 84 illegal aliens in a trailer. A jury convicted him for
   trafficking aliens. On appeal, Yusuf argues the jury had insufficient evidence.
   We disagree and affirm.
                                          I.
          On March 19, 2021, Abdullah Yusuf pulled a flatbed trailer north on
   Interstate 35. At a Border Patrol checkpoint near Laredo, Texas, a police dog
   alerted to Yusuf’s vehicle. Further inspection revealed that the trailer carried
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 21-40926

   84 illegal aliens inside several wooden crates arranged in a rectangle and
   covered by a tarp. The Government charged Yusuf with transporting illegal
   aliens within the United States for financial gain and conspiring to do the
   same. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), (a)(1)(B)(i).
          Yusuf waived his Miranda rights. He then told Homeland Security
   Inspector Juan Carlos De Arcos that he was headed to Dallas and didn’t know
   what he was hauling. Yusuf claimed a brokerage company named “You
   Brokerage” paid him $2,700 to haul the load. He said he arrived at the pickup
   location—a lot on Auburn Road in Laredo—between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00
   a.m. On his telling, Yusuf then backed his trailer to the loading dock, took his
   tractor to the Flying J to wait while the trailer was being loaded, returned an
   hour later, hooked his tractor to the now-loaded trailer, received a bill of
   lading (“BOL”), and started for Dallas.
          Agent De Arcos testified that Jamco International, Inc. owned the
   Auburn Road lot and used it for storing empty trailers. The lot had a “loose
   gravel” surface. The lot had no warehouse, loading equipment, or loading
   dock. A representative from Jamco testified that the lot only had one
   entrance, locked daily from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
          Agent De Arcos also testified that his investigation into “You
   Brokerage” revealed no record of the company’s existence. The phone
   number Yusuf provided for “You Brokerage” didn’t work. Agent De Arcos
   could not find a logbook in Yusuf’s tractor. He did, however, find the BOL
   for the load in question. It identified USA Trucking—not Yusuf’s company,
   Steel on Steel Transportation—as the carrier, contained a trailer number that
   didn’t match Yusuf’s trailer, included an origin address other than Auburn
   Road, and listed a delivery address in North Carolina, not Dallas. Agent De

                                          2
Case: 21-40926       Document: 00516601499            Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                       No. 21-40926

   Arcos testified that the BOL appeared to have been forged by doctoring an
   older one, also found in the tractor. 1
          Two of the aliens found in Yusuf’s trailer also testified. Both
   acknowledged that they paid several thousand dollars to be smuggled into the
   United States. Whereas Yusuf said the trailer was loaded at the Jamco “loose
   gravel” lot, both aliens said the trailer was parked on hard ground made of
   “cement or concrete,” and one said the loading occurred “in an alley,” not
   an open lot. And whereas Yusuf claimed he took his tractor to the Flying J
   while the trailer was being loaded, one of the aliens testified that he walked
   past the tractor right before climbing into the trailer. Once all 84 aliens were
   loaded, the truck left roughly two minutes later.
          Yusuf moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the
   Government’s case. The district court denied it. Yusuf then took the stand.
   He denied ever agreeing to transport aliens and claimed he didn’t know there
   were people in his trailer. Yusuf reaffirmed the statement he had given to
   Agent De Arcos months earlier. He said the “You Brokerage” representative
   told him to pick up the load at the Auburn Road lot. When he arrived, Yusuf
   was told to leave his trailer and that he would receive a call when the load was
   ready. Yusuf left the lot, walked his dogs, and waited about 45 minutes to an
   hour. When Yusuf returned to the lot, he found his trailer loaded and turned
   around so that it was facing the exit. He hooked up to the trailer (which he
   said takes roughly 5 minutes), ensured the straps were secure, received the

          1
              USA Trucking Senior Vice President George Henry testified that the older BOL
   was from a trip undertaken by Yusuf for USA Trucking. Henry further testified that the
   trailer identified in both BOLs had not been in Texas since February 3, 2021. Moreover,
   USA Trucking had no records of anything recently being shipped to Bessemer, North
   Carolina—the address on the newer BOL.

                                             3
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499          Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 21-40926

   BOL from a person working at the lot, then traveled north on I-35 toward
   Dallas.
          The defense rested, but Yusuf didn’t renew his motion for a judgment
   of acquittal. The jury convicted Yusuf on all counts, and the court sentenced
   him to 70 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Yusuf
   timely appealed.
                                         II.
          We (A) explain the particularly exacting standard that applies to
   unpreserved sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges. Then we (B) hold that
   Yusuf fails to clear that nearly insurmountable hurdle.
                                         A.
          “The standard of review for insufficiency-of-the-evidence claims
   depends on whether the claims were preserved.” United States v. Suarez, 879
   F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2018). For preserved sufficiency claims, we give
   “substantial deference to the jury verdict” and affirm if “a rational jury could
   have found each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
   United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quoting
   United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1994)); see also United
   States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002) (“We do not
   consider whether the jury correctly determined innocence or guilt, but
   whether the jury made a rational decision.”). And in doing so, we “view[]
   the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and draw[] all
   reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.” United
   States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation
   omitted). That’s a high bar. See United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858, 870
   (5th Cir. 2010) (describing the standard as “highly deferential”); United
   States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 288 (5th Cir. 2022) (describing the standard
   as placing a “heavy thumb on the scale in favor of the verdict”).

                                          4
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499          Page: 5    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 21-40926

          Yusuf, however, didn’t preserve his sufficiency challenge. See United
   States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002) (“When the defendant
   moves for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case in chief,
   and defense evidence is thereafter presented but the defendant fails to renew
   the motion at the conclusion of all of the evidence, he waives objection to the
   denial of his earlier motion.” (quotation omitted)). So Yusuf faces an even
   greater hurdle. We review unpreserved claims under the familiar four-factor
   plain-error standard:
          First, there must be an error or defect . . . . Second, the legal
          error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
          dispute. Third, the error must have affected the appellant’s
          substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must
          demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the district court
          proceedings. Fourth and finally, if the above three prongs are
          satisfied, the court of appeals has the discretion to remedy the
          error—discretion which ought to be exercised only if the error
          seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
          judicial proceedings.
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (quotation omitted).
          Meeting all four prongs of plain-error review is “difficult, as it should
   be.” Ibid. (quotation omitted). But where, as here, the unpreserved claim is
   a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the standard of review is doubly
   difficult. Cf., e.g., Johnson v. Sec’y, DOC, 643 F.3d 907, 911 (11th Cir. 2011)
   (“Double deference is doubly difficult for a petitioner to overcome, and it
   will be a rare case in which an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was
   denied on the merits in state court is found to merit relief in a federal habeas
   proceeding.”). That’s because the “substantial deference” that we generally
   afford verdicts combines with the “exacting” plain-error standard to create
   an exponentially more difficult standard of review than either one standing
   alone. Delgado, 672 F.3d at 330–31; see also Cabello, 33 F.4th at 288. Indeed,

                                          5
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499           Page: 6     Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                     No. 21-40926

   a sufficiency error satisfies the second prong of plain-error review only when
   “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” Delgado, 672 F.3d at 331
   (quotation omitted). Mere insufficiency doesn’t cut it. Rather, the movant
   must prove that the evidence was so completely, obviously, and unbelievably
   inadequate that allowing the verdict to stand would be a “shocking” and
   “manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Smith, 878 F.3d 498, 503
   (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). These combined standards are
   tantamount to the eye of a virtually impassable needle. Yusuf cites no case
   where a defendant threaded it.
                                             B.
          This case will not be the first.
          To obtain a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, the Government must
   prove the accused “(1) agreed with one or more persons (2) to transport an
   undocumented alien inside the United States (3) in furtherance of his
   unlawful presence (4) knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that the
   alien’s presence in the United States was unlawful.” Jimenez-Elvirez, 862
   F.3d at 533–34; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). And for a substantive
   transportation offense, the Government must prove that (1) “an alien
   entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law,” and the
   accused (2) “transported the alien within the United States with intent to
   further the alien’s unlawful presence,” (3) “knew or recklessly disregarded
   the fact that the alien was in the country in violation of the law,” and (4) acted
   for financial gain. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d at 765; see also 8 U.S.C.
   § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(i); United States v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 890 F.3d
   202, 210 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Yusuf argues that the Government failed to prove that he knew illegal
   aliens were in his truck, that he agreed with anyone to transport illegal aliens,
   or that he sought to further their unlawful presence in the United States. But

                                             6
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499          Page: 7   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 21-40926

   viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the
   verdict—and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict—
   Yusuf doesn’t come close to meeting the doubly deferential plain-error-
   sufficiency burden.
          Start with knowledge. “[K]nowledge may be—and often must be—
   shown by circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Mata, 839 F. App’x 862,
   867 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (collecting cases); see also United States v.
   Garcia, 883 F.3d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that a defendant’s mental
   state is “almost always proved by circumstantial evidence” (quotation
   omitted)). Consciousness of guilt can be inferred from a host of factors,
   including control over the vehicle where the illegal object or alien is
   concealed, conflicting or inconsistent statements, implausible explanations,
   incomplete answers to questions by law enforcement, demeanor, and lack of
   concern or surprise when the illegality is discovered. E.g., United States v.
   Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Rodriguez,
   776 F. App’x 249, 250 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). In the alien-smuggling
   context, we’ve also considered additional factors such as whether the
   defendant is the sole driver or occupant of the tractor and if it would be
   reasonable to place the fate of a lucrative voyage in the hands of an unwitting
   party. E.g., Mata, 839 F. App’x at 867–68; Rodriguez, 776 F. App’x at 250;
   United States v. Durant, 167 F. App’x 369, 370 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
          At Yusuf’s trial, the Government presented a mountain of evidence
   indicating that Yusuf knew he was hauling illegal aliens. Yusuf was the sole
   driver and occupant of the truck in the trailer of which 84 illegal aliens were
   discovered; that alone is probative of knowledge. Durant, 167 F. App’x at 370.
   The jury also heard abundant evidence that Yusuf’s story lacked credibility.
   United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657, 660–61 (5th Cir. 2002)
   (inferring knowledge from less-than-credible explanations). Just to name
   some of the inconsistencies: Yusuf testified the trailer was loaded in an open

                                          7
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499            Page: 8    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                      No. 21-40926

   lot, but one of the aliens said he boarded the trailer in an alley; Yusuf testified
   his trailer was loaded on a gravel surface, but both aliens said the surface was
   concrete; Yusuf testified he pulled his trailer up to a loading dock, but
   Jamco’s Auburn Road location doesn’t have a loading dock; Yusuf testified
   he pulled into the Auburn Road lot around midnight, but the Auburn Road
   lot was locked daily from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. The jury was entitled to discredit
   Yusuf’s testimony and conclude that he knew exactly what he was doing.
   United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The jury retains
   the sole authority to weigh any conflicting evidence and to evaluate the
   credibility of the witnesses.” (quotation omitted)); see also United States v.
   Campos, 354 F. App’x 97, 98 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“The jury heard
   the testimony of Campos regarding his alleged lack of knowledge of the
   alien’s presence and apparently did not find it to be credible.”).
          Lastly with respect to knowledge, the Government presented
   evidence indicating Yusuf was present when the aliens were loaded onto the
   trailer. One of the aliens testified that he walked past Yusuf’s tractor before
   climbing onto the trailer. And once he boarded the trailer, the truck left
   roughly two minutes later. This directly contradicts Yusuf’s sworn statement
   that he took his tractor to the Flying J while the trailer was being loaded and
   that upon his return it took at least five minutes to hook his tractor back onto
   the trailer before commencing the journey north. United States v. Meyer, 733
   F.2d 362, 363 (5th Cir. 1984) (“False exculpatory statements may be used
   not only to impeach, but also as substantive evidence tending to prove
   guilt.”).
          Yusuf further argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that
   he conspired with anyone to transport aliens. But “[g]iven the testimony of
   the aliens regarding the coordination of the trip, the other persons involved
   in the [loading and] transport, and the inference that [Yusuf] knew he was
   transporting aliens, the evidence also reasonably supports an inference that

                                           8
Case: 21-40926      Document: 00516601499          Page: 9    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                    No. 21-40926

   [Yusuf] agreed to participate in the organized smuggling operation.”
   Rodriguez, 776 F. App’x at 250. Further, the jury was entitled to infer “from
   the large quantity and value of [aliens], and the difficulty of secreting [them]
   in the [trailer], that others were involved in the scheme.” Gutierrez-Farias,
   294 F.3d at 661. Yusuf himself even acknowledged that he agreed with at least
   one other individual—the fictional “You Brokerage” broker—to transport
   the load.
          Finally, Yusuf argues that the Government didn’t produce sufficient
   evidence that he sought to further the illegal aliens’ presence in the United
   States. That’s wrong for several reasons. First, and most obviously, Yusuf
   “was found to be attempting to drive aliens away from the border while they
   were hidden in a trailer—passing through a Border Patrol checkpoint at an
   hour described as a peak time for smuggling.” Mata, 839 F. App’x at 869.
   Next, Yusuf was carrying a false BOL for the journey. Together, the
   testimony of Agent De Arcos and USA Trucking Senior Vice President
   George Henry supported the inference that Yusuf himself forged the BOL to
   facilitate his drive north. Lastly, the jury was well in bounds to find that
   Yusuf’s financial prospects were contingent on the aliens’ safe passage into
   the United States. Both aliens who testified said they agreed to pay at least
   $10,000 to be smuggled into the United States. If all 84 aliens paid even close
   to that sum, then Yusuf’s journey north had significant financial stakes.
   “[T]he jury could have reasonably inferred that [Yusuf] would not have been
   entrusted with such a valuable cargo if []he had not been knowledgeable and
   involved in the alien-smuggling scheme.” Durant, 167 F. App’x at 370.
          Yusuf fails to prove the trial evidence was insufficient—much less that
   it was so obviously inadequate that it would satisfy our doubly deferential
   standard of review.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          9