UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40108
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELIDA CASTILLO DE SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-00-CR-939-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
March 15, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elida Castillo De Salazar contends: her convictions for
illegally transporting aliens should be reversed because the
Government failed to prove she knowingly transported illegal aliens
in furtherance of their illegal entry into the United States; and
the jury instructions, to which she did not object, constructively
amended the indictment to charge her with transporting illegal
aliens to assist them in remaining in the United States.
Although the wording of the indictment did not precisely track
the language of the statute, it clearly charged Salazar had
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
transported the aliens within the United States after they had
illegally entered this country. Contrary to Salazar’s assertion,
the indictment could be read to charge her with transporting the
aliens after they had entered the country in furtherance of their
intent to illegally remain in this country. There was no
constructive amendment of the indictment. See United States v.
Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 2001).
Salazar testified at trial and, inter alia, claimed duress.
Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, it supported the charge made in the indictment: the aliens
had illegally entered this country; Salazar knew the men were
illegally present; and she knowingly transported them within the
United States in furtherance of their continued illegal presence.
There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to
find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Salazar violated the
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii). See United States v.
Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S.
1135 (2000).
AFFIRMED
2