United States v. Goiburo Martinez ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50629 Document: 00516326122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 19, 2022
No. 21-50629 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Gerardo Yuliet Goiburo Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-1545-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gerardo Yuliet Goiburo Martinez was convicted by a jury of fraud and
misuse of visas, permits, or other documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1546(a). He was sentenced to five years of probation. On appeal, Goiburo
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50629 Document: 00516326122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2022
No. 21-50629
Martinez challenges two supplemental jury instructions issued in response to
questions from the jury.
We review challenged jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168, 183 (5th Cir. 2002). “The standard of
review . . . is whether the court’s charge, as a whole, is a correct statement of
the law and whether it clearly instructs jurors as to the principles of the law
applicable to the factual issues confronting them.” Id. (citation omitted). To
obtain a conviction under the first paragraph of Section 1546(a), the
Government must prove that (1) the defendant, inter alia, knowingly used or
possessed (2) a forged, counterfeited, or otherwise falsified immigration
document that (3) the defendant knew was false. See § 1546(a); United States
v. Uvalle-Patricio, 478 F.3d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 2007).
The district court’s response to the jury’s first note was a correct
statement of the law, and it tracked the language of the Fifth Circuit’s Pattern
Jury Instructions. See § 1546(a); Uvalle-Patricio, 478 F.3d at 702; see also
United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 507 (5th Cir. 2012). The
instruction was also responsive to the jury’s request for the language of the
statute. The district court properly advised the jury that the Government
was only required to prove one means of violating the statute. The court did
not abuse its discretion by discussing alternative means of committing the
charged offense given the discrepancies between the indictment, which listed
all seven means of violating the statute, and the initial jury instructions, which
included only use and possession as means. See Daniels, 281 F.3d at 183; cf.
United States v. Barraza, 655 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir. 2011). Similarly, the
district court’s response to the jury’s third note accurately summarized the
law and clearly indicated which of the two means of violating the statute were
at issue in the case. See Uvalle-Patricio, 478 F.3d at 702; see also Richardson,
676 F.3d at 507.
2
Case: 21-50629 Document: 00516326122 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2022
No. 21-50629
The district court was not required to refer the jury to the original
instructions or instruct the jury broadly on the burden of proof because the
initial instructions and supplemental instructions should be considered as a
whole, and the initial instructions contained detailed charges on the
presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. See
United States v. Carter, 491 F.2d 625, 633 (5th Cir. 1974). The district court’s
responses to the jury’s questions were “correct statement[s] of the law” and
“clearly instruct[ed] jurors as to the principles of the law applicable to the
factual issues confronting them.” Daniels, 281 F.3d at 183 (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3