United States v. Islas-Salinas
This text of United States v. Islas-Salinas (United States v. Islas-Salinas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11337 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELPIDIO ISLAS-SALINAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CR-46-1-C - - - - - - - - - - July 18, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elpidio Islas-Salinas (“Islas”) appeals his conviction,
following a jury trial, of transportation of illegal aliens, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Islas’ motion for
leave to file a corrected brief is GRANTED.
Islas contends that the district court abused its discretion
by admitting FED. R. EVID. 404(b) evidence of his arrest for
transporting illegal aliens a mere 17 days prior to the date of
his arrest for the charged offense. Because evidence of the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-11337 -2-
prior arrest was relevant to prove Islas’ intent and absence of
mistake as to the illegal status of the aliens in the instant
offense, the probative value of the evidence was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See
United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 870-72 (5th
Cir. 1998); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.
1978) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence. See United States v.
Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1377 (5th Cir. 1993).
Islas also contends that the trial evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction, primarily on the ground that the
Government failed to prove that he knew the passengers in the van
he was driving were illegal aliens. The evidence was not
insufficient to support Islas’ conviction. See United States v.
El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002). Islas’
brother, Grodes, pleaded guilty to the same count with which
Islas was charged, and he testified for the Government that he
was also in the van that picked up approximately one dozen
illegal aliens from an abandoned house in Phoenix, with the
intent of transporting them to Dallas. Grodes was aware that the
passengers were illegal aliens, based on the circumstances of the
trip and the aliens’ appearance. When stopped by law-enforcement
officers outside of Lubbock, Texas, the aliens were lying on the
floor and seats of the van to conceal themselves. Grodes’
testimony and the circumstances of the trip were sufficient to
establish Islas’ knowledge of the aliens’ illegal status, or at No. 01-11337 -3-
least his reckless disregard of such status. See Nolasco-Rosas,
286 F.3d at 765; see 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).
The conviction is thus AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Islas-Salinas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-islas-salinas-ca5-2002.