United States v. Anthony McCalebb ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40962 Document: 00515538769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 24, 2020
No. 19-40962 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Anthony Terrele McCalebb,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-307-2
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Anthony Terrele McCalebb was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to
transport undocumented aliens within the United States and two counts of
transporting an undocumented alien within the United States for commercial
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
Case: 19-40962 Document: 00515538769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2020
No. 19-40962
advantage and private financial gain. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the two latter counts, specifically as to the
transporting element. Because his sufficiency challenge is preserved, we
review it de novo. See United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007);
United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995). We view all
of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government with all
reasonable inferences made in support of the jury’s verdict. See United States
v. Moser, 123 F.3d 813, 819 (5th Cir. 1997).
McCalebb argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
transporting element because he was only the passenger during the offense.
However, there was sufficient evidence showing that McCalebb had control
over the operation by convincing his co-defendant to engage in these
offenses; being the sole coordinator with the unidentified alien smuggler,
both before and during the offense; and directing the aliens where and how
to hide. See United States v. Acosta-Ruiz, 481 F. App’x 213, 216 (5th Cir.
2012); United States v. Pineda-Jimenez, 212 F. App’x 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2