United States v. Ramirez , 180 F. App'x 546 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 19, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-40504 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. 2:04-CR-677-ALL)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Ramirez appeals his jury conviction for two counts of
transporting illegal aliens within the United States in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He argues that the government failed to
present sufficient evidence that he knowingly transported illegal
aliens in the trailer of his truck. Although Ramirez moved for
judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case, he did
not renew his motion after presenting his defense or at the close
of all evidence at trial. Thus, Ramirez’s sufficiency of the
evidence challenge is reviewed only for a manifest miscarriage of
justice. United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2004). To find a miscarriage of justice, the court must find that
the record is “devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence must be
so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” Id.
Here, the evidence shows that Ramirez drove an 18-wheel
tractor-trailer truck to the border checkpoint in Falfurrias,
Texas, with twenty four illegal aliens locked in the otherwise
empty trailer. Ramirez recognizes in his brief that the evidence
showed that the lock on the trailer was his. Further, Ramirez was
visibly nervous as he communicated with Border Patrol agents at the
checkpoint. Ramirez also provided inconsistent statements to the
agents regarding his itinerary, and a rational jury could have
found his explanation for the aliens’ presence implausible. In
short, Ramirez has not shown that the record is “devoid of evidence
of guilt” or “so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” Id.
AFFIRMED.
2