US v. Martinez-Marin
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUVENAL MARTINEZ-MARIN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-05-202)
August 9, 2006
August 31, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher C. Finch, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Rebeca H. Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael B. Kades, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Juvenal Martinez-Marin appeals his conviction after a jury trial of one count of unlawfully transporting illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2000). On appeal,
Martinez-Marin argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree and affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, "[A]n appellate court's reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear." v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984). United States
A jury's verdict must
be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to establish a
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. In evaluating
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
- 2 -
The elements of a violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) are "(1) the transporting or moving of an alien within the United States, (2) that the alien was present in violation of law, (3) that the defendant was aware of the alien's status, and (4) that the defendant acted willfully in furtherance of the alien's violation of the law." United States v. Barajas-Chavez, Martinez-Marin does not who were in the country
162 F.3d 1285, 1287 (10th Cir. 1999). contest that he transported aliens
illegally, or that he knew or acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the aliens were in the country illegally. He takes issue
only with the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the fourth element--that he acted to help the aliens remain in the country illegally. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to establish this element of the crime, and therefore sustain the jury's finding of guilt. We therefore affirm Martinez-Marin's conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?