United States v. Jennifer Morris

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 26, 2019
• Docket: 19-40050
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-40050 Document: 00515249245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 19-40050 FILED Summary Calendar December 26, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JENNIFER ALEXANDRIA MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18-CR-319-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Jennifer Alexandria Morris was convicted by a jury of three counts of transporting aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). She now appeals her convictions and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions. Specifically, Morris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence indicating that she knew the truck

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-40050 Document: 00515249245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2019

No. 19-40050

she was driving contained six concealed aliens or that she was transporting them with the intent to further their unlawful presence. Reviewing Morris’s preserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, we affirm. See United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 2017). Based on the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including (1) testimony from two of the concealed aliens regarding the driver change before the truck reached an immigration checkpoint, (2) testimony from two of the concealed aliens indicating that they heard a female’s voice during the driver exchange, and (3) testimony from a Border Patrol agent regarding Morris’s nervous behavior at the checkpoint, a rational jury could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In light of the standard of review, Morris’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. See id. AFFIRMED.