United States v. Maguina ( 2023 )

Case: 21-51163 Document: 00516756981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-51163
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 19, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Walter Raul Maguina,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-2607-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Walter Raul Maguina appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
transport aliens and transportation of aliens. He argues that the district court
abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his 2018 conviction for
transportation of aliens. He also asserts that a limited remand is required
because the district court did not properly articulate its findings on the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51163 Document: 00516756981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
No. 21-51163
applicable balancing test for the admission of such evidence. We disagree and
AFFIRM.
* * *
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, extrinsic evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible as proof of character but may be
admitted to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b)(2); see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1); United States v. Cockrell,
587 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). We determine whether evidence was
properly admitted under Rule 404(b) by applying the two-prong test
provided in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
See United States v. Juarez, 866 F.3d 622, 627 (5th Cir. 2017). Under prong
one, the extrinsic evidence of a past offense must be “relevant to an issue
other than the defendant’s character.” Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911. Under
prong two, “the evidence must possess probative value that is not
substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice and must meet the other
requirements of [Federal Rule of Evidence] 403.” Id. Where, as here, a
defendant timely objects to a district court’s ruling to admit evidence under
Rule 404(b), we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hays, 872
F.2d 582, 587 (5th Cir. 1989).
Maguina does not challenge the relevance of the evidence of his prior
conviction. We thus turn to the second prong of the Beechum test, which
requires us to assess several factors, including: “(1) the government’s need
for the extrinsic evidence, (2) the similarity between the extrinsic and
charged offenses, (3) the amount of time separating the two offenses, and (4)
the court’s limiting instructions.” Juarez, 866 F.3d at 627 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Because we must make a “commonsense
assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense,” no
2
Case: 21-51163 Document: 00516756981 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
No. 21-51163
one factor is dispositive. Beechum, 582 F.2d at 914. Additionally, the overall
prejudicial effect of the extrinsic evidence is considered. See Juarez, 866 F.3d
at 629–30. We look to whether the prior conviction was “of a heinous
nature,” and whether the evidence of such conviction was “likely to incite
the jury to an irrational decision,” “cumulative,” or “tend[ed] to confuse
the issues, mislead the jury or cause undue delay.” United States v. McMahon,
592 F.2d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Maguina is unable to establish that evidence of his 2018 conviction for
transportation of aliens was inadmissible under prong two of the Beechum
test. First, the Government had a need for extrinsic evidence to prove intent,
knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake because Maguina asserted lack of
knowledge in his defense, claiming he was a taxi driver merely helping a
member of the clergy who worked with refugees. Second, the 2018 case was
similar to this case, and the dissimilar facts that Maguina points to are directly
connected to Maguina’s involvement in alien smuggling in 2018 and
therefore “significant . . . [to] the purpose of the inquiry at hand.” United
States v. Valenzuela, 57 F.4th 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding no abuse of
discretion to admit Rule 404(b) evidence in trial for drug smuggling, even
where there were some different aspects in prior drug smuggling conviction).
Third, Maguina concedes that the amount of time separating the offenses
does not weigh in favor of a finding of undue prejudice. Finally, the limiting
instructions given by the court were sufficient as we have held that even less
extensive limiting instructions are sufficient to mitigate a jury’s improper use
of Rule 404(b) evidence. See Valenzuela, 57 F.4th at 523. Moreover, there are
no aspects of the evidence, nor the presentation of it, that could have misled
or incited the jury. See McMahon, 592 F.2d at 876. Therefore, the risk of
unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the
3
Case: 21-51163 Document: 00516756981 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/19/2023
No. 21-51163
evidence of the 2018 conviction. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting such evidence. See Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
Finally, Maguina says this case must be remanded because the district
court failed to address the prejudicial nature of the extrinsic evidence. In
assessing this argument, we must confirm that the district court “engage[d]
in the proper Beechum analysis and that this analysis is sufficiently apparent
for purposes of appellate review.” United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1401
(5th Cir. 1991). The district court “must articulate on the record its findings
as to the Beechum probative value/prejudice evaluation” when formally
requested by a party. Id. A mere objection to the admission of Rule 404(b)
evidence—even with an argument addressing the prejudice prong—does not
rise to the level of a formal request. Id. at 1402–03. If the district court fails
to respond to this request and make the proper record, we must order a
limited remand for the district court to properly and explicitly engage in the
Beechum probative value/prejudice evaluation. Id. at 1402. However, this
remand requirement does not apply if “the factors upon which the probative
value/prejudice evaluation were [sic] made are readily apparent from the
record, and there is no substantial uncertainty about the correctness of the
ruling.” United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1983).
Here, Maguina’s invocations and objections concerning the prejudice
prong were not formal requests for a Beechum finding. See Osum, 943 F.2d at
1402–03. Moreover, “there is no substantial uncertainty about the
correctness of the ruling.” Robinson, 700 F.2d at 213. The district court was
presented with the parties’ arguments on this issue, the court understood the
requirements of Rule 404(b), and the “factors contributing to the probative
value/prejudice determination are . . . evident from the record.” Osum, 943
F.2d at 1403. Accordingly, no remand is required.
AFFIRMED
4