USA v. Zelaya-Guerra, No. 22-40787 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-40787 Document: 00516990917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED December 5, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 22-40787 ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Carlos Javier Zelaya-Guerra, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-98-1 ______________________________ Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Carlos Javier Zelaya-Guerra appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) motion for judgment of acquittal following his conviction for one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by an undocumented alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Zelaya-Guerra argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal contending there is insufficient evidence establishing _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40787 Document: 00516990917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2023 No. 22-40787 that he “knew he was in the country unlawfully” at the time of the offense. Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). We review de novo claims regarding the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, but we afford great deference to the jury verdict. United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir. 2005). “Moving for a judgment of acquittal is considered to be a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Zamora-Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 831 (5th Cir. 2017). After “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict,” Ragsdale, 426 F.3d at 770-71, we conclude that the evidence, including Zelaya-Guerra’s nervous behavior, inconsistent statements, and statements evincing his knowledge that his adjustment of status was ongoing during the pertinent traffic stop, was sufficient to establish that ZelayaGuerra knew at the time of offense that he was in the country unlawfully. See Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200; see also United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954–55 (5th Cir. 1990). Because the jury verdict was rational based on this evidence, the district court did not err by denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2
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.
