IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41458
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS ARMANDO CANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-CR-243-1
__________________________________________
October 31, 2001
Before POLITZ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Armando Cano appeals his conviction for transporting aliens within the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (a)(1)(A)(v)(II).
Cano contends that (1) the evidence in his case was insufficient to support his
conviction, (2) the district court erred by failing to reduce his base offense level by
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
three levels because he did not profit from transporting aliens, and (3) his conviction
violates Apprendi v. New Jersey.1
The standard of review of the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction
is whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence
established the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2 The
evidence presented at Cano’s trial was sufficient to establish that he participated in
transporting illegal aliens.
Cano has failed to establish that the district court erred in finding that the
offense was committed for profit, and he has failed to carry his burden of showing
that he lacked a profit motive.3
Finally, Cano maintains that his sentence violates Apprendi. Apprendi is
inapplicable in Cano’s case.4
AFFIRMED.
1
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
2
United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1998).
3
United States v. Cuellar-Flores, 891 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1989).
4
United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1152
(2001); United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1163
(2001).
2