United States v. Leon ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-41204
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN HERNANDEZ LEON; ALBERTO LEON,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. B-01-CR-154-1
    --------------------
    November 21, 2002
    Before JOLLY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan Hernandez Leon and Alberto Leon appeal their
    convictions after a jury trial for conspiracy to transport and
    transporting certain aliens within the United States in violation
    of 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1324
    (a)(1)(A)(ii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I),
    1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II).   Appellants contend that the evidence was
    insufficient to support their convictions.   Alberto Leon also
    argues that the district court committed plain error when it
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 01-41204
    -2-
    instructed the jury regarding witness credibility and that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    The Leons moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of
    the Government’s case but did not renew their motions at the
    close of their case.   Therefore, we review the evidence to
    determine whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.
    United States v. Johnson, 
    87 F.3d 133
    , 136 (5th Cir. 1996).
    The Government set forth testimony of four aliens who were
    found within the Leon’s trailers.    Each admitted that they swam
    across the Rio Grande River to enter the country and that they
    were here illegally.   The Government also independently verified
    that each alien was undocumented by checking their immigration
    status in the central index computer system, and by analyzing
    their fingerprints and photographs.    Therefore, the Government
    set forth sufficient evidence of the status of the aliens to
    support the Leons’ 
    8 U.S.C. § 1324
     convictions.    See United
    States v. Esparza, 
    882 F.2d 143
    , 145 (5th Cir. 1989); United
    States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 
    286 F.3d 762
    , 765 (5th Cir. 2002).
    Juan Leon also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
    support his conspiracy conviction.    The record shows that the
    Leons traveled in an indirect route to San Benito, Texas; were in
    frequent contact with each other; and left their trailers
    unlocked and unattended at night, with the rear doors facing an
    overgrown area known to be frequented by undocumented aliens.
    Upon returning, neither Leon inspected their trailer.    This court
    No. 01-41204
    -3-
    will not reverse the credibility determination of the jury, who
    heard testimony from both appellants and from Government
    witnesses and who concluded that Juan Leon engaged in a
    conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens within the United
    States.   See Martin v. Thomas, 
    973 F.2d 449
    , 453 (5th Cir. 1992).
    Since Alberto Leon did not object in the district court to
    the witness credibility instruction, we review for plain error.
    See United States v. McClatchy, 
    249 F.3d 348
    , 357 (5th Cir.)
    (citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 217
     (2001).      The
    credibility instruction conforms with this circuit’s pattern jury
    instructions.   See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions
    Criminal No. 1.08 (2001).   Alberto Leon has not demonstrated that
    this jury instruction incorrectly sets forth the law.
    Alberto Leon also argues for the first time that trial
    counsel rendered ineffective assistance.    Claims of inadequate
    representation on direct appeal are only reviewed in rare cases
    where the record allows the court to fairly evaluate the merits.
    United States v. Higdon, 
    832 F.2d 312
    , 314 (5th Cir. 1987).     This
    is not one of those rare cases, since the district court’s record
    was not developed on this issue and an evaluation would require
    speculation.    See United States v. Bounds, 
    943 F.2d 541
    , 544 (5th
    Cir. 1991); United States v. Valuck, 
    286 F.3d 221
    , 229 (5th Cir.
    2002).
    For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
    AFFIRMED.