IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40228
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SINECIO VALADEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-98-CR-747-ALL
--------------------
February 9, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sinecio Valadez appeals his conviction and sentence for
transporting an illegal alien within the United States. Valadez
asserts that the district court erred in admitting evidence
regarding a large sum of cash found in his vehicle, as such
evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and his prior
statement that he intended to transport his relatives in a
trailer, as such was inadmissible character evidence. Valadez
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40228
-2-
further asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction and that the district court erred in refusing to grant
him an offense-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.(b)(1).
This Court generally reviews a district court’s evidentiary
rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cantu, 167
F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 58 (1999).
However, because Valadez failed to renew his motion in limine’s
objection to the evidence regarding the large sum of cash found
in his vehicle prior to the introduction of trial testimony
regarding such cash, review is for plain error. See United
States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551 (5th Cir. 1993). After
reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we find that the
district court did not plainly err in admitting evidence of the
large sum of cash found in Valadez’s vehicle. See id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
evidence of Valadez’s prior statement regarding his intent to
transport his relatives in a trailer. That evidence was highly
probative regarding Valadez’s intent to commit the instant
offense, which Valadez had placed at issue by pleading not
guilty, and the evidence’s probative value was not substantially
outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See United States
v. Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, Valadez
failed to demonstrate that the admission of the prior statement
affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Hall, 152
F.3d 381, 402 (5th Cir. 1998).
Valadez’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is
also without merit. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable
No. 99-40228
-3-
inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the
jury’s verdict, as we must, the evidence was sufficient to
support Valadez’s conviction. See United States v. Gourley, 168
F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999).
Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding
that Valadez committed the instant offense for profit and, thus,
was not entitled to the § 2L1.1(b)(1) offense-level reduction for
offenses committed other than for profit. See United States v.
Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329-30 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S.
1142 (1998).
AFFIRMED.