USA v. Mendoza-Martinez, No. 08-40574 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-40574 Summary Calendar July 24, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN ANDRES MENDOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-1012-1 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Andres Mendoza-Martinez (Mendoza) appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for private financial gain and transporting illegal aliens for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. ยง 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i). Mendoza argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he conspired to transport illegal aliens for private financial gain and that he transported illegal aliens for private financial gain. Because Mendoza failed to renew his motion for acquittal at the close of all evidence, he waived his * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-40574 objection to the trial court s earlier denial of his motion. See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001). In such a situation, this court s review is limited to determining whether the defendant s conviction resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice, that is whether the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or whether the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking. United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994). A review of the record indicates that there is sufficient evidence of guilt. Therefore, Mendoza has not shown that his conviction would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, Mendoza s conviction is AFFIRMED. 2 See id.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
