United States v. Nuria Alberto-De Gomez
Appeal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 10-40945

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

Space Space

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (53) Tab Overlap Cited By (1) Right End
Case: 10-40945 Document: 00511505065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2011

Fifth Circuit
June 10, 2011
No. 10-40945
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce


Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
No. 2:10-CR-288-2

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Nuria Alberto-de Gomez appeals her jury conviction of conspiracy to trans- port illegal aliens and three counts of aiding and abetting in the transportation


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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-40945 Document: 00511505065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2011
No. 10-40945
of illegal aliens. She argues that the government failed to prove that she know- ingly and intentionally conspired to transport illegal aliens within the United States. She asserts that her testimony accounted for her actions during the en- tire relevant time preceding her arrests and that government witnesses gave conflicting testimony, which made their testimony less credible.

Because Alberto-de Gomez moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence and renewed the motion after she rested her case, we "will affirm the district court ‘if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903, 910 (5th Cir.2008) (citation and alteration omit- ted). In undertaking that review, we view the evidence in the light most favora- ble to the verdict and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to sup- port the verdict. Id.

Using that standard, we conclude that the jury had more than an ample basis for determining that Alberto-de Gomez knowingly participated in a con- spiracy with her husband, Juan Gomez, to transport illegal aliens and aided and abetted in the transportation of the aliens within the United States. See United States v. Pando Franco, 503 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v Avila- Dominguez, 610 F.2d 1266, 1271 (5th Cir. 1980); 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The testimony of the aliens showed that Alberto-de Gomez and her husband took steps to alter the aliens' appearances and to control their responses to agents to conceal their illegal entry. The jury could have inferred Alberto-de Gomez's knowledge of her wrongdoing based on her admission that she was warned in 2008 of the consequences of transporting illegal aliens.

The jury's apparent determination that the testimony of the government's witnesses was more credible than Alberto-de Gomez's cannot be reevaluated by this court and is also supported by the overwhelming evidence in the record. United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1120 (5th Cir. 2006). The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the government had estab- [End Page 2]

Case: 10-40945 Document: 00511505065 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2011
No. 10-40945
lished the elements of the conspiracy and transportation offenses beyond a rea- sonable doubt. Percel, 553 F.3d at 910.

Alberto-de Gomez contends that the district court erroneously denied her motion for a new trial without considering her proffer that she possessed evi- dence that her husband would exonerate her of wrongdoing. To be entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Alberto-de Gomez must have dem- onstrated that the evidence was unknown to her at the time of trial, that the failure to detect the evidence was not from her lack of diligence, that the evi- dence was material, and that it would probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Bowler, 252 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Alberto-de Gomez was aware, at the time of trial, that her husband could provide testimony, his proposed testimony was not new evidence. Nor has she shown that he had agreed to give up his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to testify. Further, even if he had testified, the jury could have found that his testimony in favor his wife was biased and did not rebut the consistent material testimony of the three illegal aliens that overwhelmingly proved guilt. The dis- trict court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Id.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

[End Page 3]


This case has been viewed 64 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Sign Up
Need Password Help?