D.C. No. CR-99-00937-RCC

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and submitted Oct. 5, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SNEED, SCHROEDER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Romero-Valdez appeals his conviction for Transportation of Illegal Aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). He argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he acted "in furtherance" of the aliens's illegal presence in the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Early in the morning of June 16, 1999, Border Patrol Agent Duane Ivey observed the defendant Francisco Romero-Valdez driving a four door sedan west on 20th street. In the front passenger seat of the vehicle was Romero-Valdez's co-defendant Miguel Mateo-Pichardo. In the back seat of the sedan were four Mexican citizens, illegally in the United States. Three of the aliens were sitting up and a fourth was lying across the floorboards.

Because Agent Ivey believed the four individuals in the back seat to be illegal aliens, he decided to follow the vehicle and run its registration plate. Upon reaching the vehicle and ascertaining the citizenship of the passengers, Agent Ivey arrested both Mateo and Romero for alien smuggling and transported all of the occupants of the car to the Douglas Border Patrol station. Both defendants gave voluntary statements to the Border Patrol upon their arrest.

Romero-Valdez and Mateo-Pichardo were tried jointly on September 21, 1999. Romero was convicted of transporting an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).

DISCUSSION

There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Romero-Valdez asserts that he was not acting "in furtherance" of the aliens's illegal presence in the United States because he was driving the aliens to the border. The jury did not believe him. Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports the jury's conclusion. First, Romero-Valdez's defense is based almost exclusively on his own self-serving statement. It was the jury's responsibility to assess the reliability of this statement. They were free to, and apparently did, disregard it. United States v. Ramirez-Jimenez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1328 (9th Cir.1992) ("the jury was not required to accept [defendant's] exculpatory testimony, even if it was not directly rebutted by the government.")

Second, one of the aliens that Romero-Valdez was transporting, Nelson Hernandez-Cruz, testified that he was unaware of any plan to return to the border. Hernandez-Cruz also testified that his ultimate destination was Chicago where his aunt and uncle reside, and that he thought Romero-Valdez was taking them to Phoenix. Third, Romero-Valdez's co-defendant, Mateo-Pichardo, initially did not corroborate the claim that Romero was taking the aliens to the border. Mateo-Pichardo told the Border Patrol that the group of illegal aliens wanted to go to Phoenix. Finally, Romero-Valdez showed consciousness of guilt by instructing the aliens to lie down in the back seat of the car to avoid detection.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the record contains sufficient evidence to persuade a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Romero-Valdez's transportation of the aliens was in furtherance of their presence in the United States.

AFFIRMED.