IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41444
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ALFREDO PEDRAZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-588-ALL
--------------------
September 4, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Alfredo Pedraza appeals his jury-trial convictions of
conspiracy to possess over 1000 kilograms of marijuana with intent
to distribute and possession of over 1000 kilograms of marijuana
with intent to distribute. After a thorough review of the trial
record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the
convictions. United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Cir. 1998). The jury was entitled to find Pedraza’s explanation of
how he acquired a trailer containing over 4200 pounds of marijuana
and his intended destination to be less than credible and to draw
an inference that Pedraza had knowledge of the contraband. See
United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 955 (5th Cir. 1990).
With respect to the conspiracy conviction, the jury could properly
infer that Pedraza had an agreement with one or more persons with
respect to the possession, transportation, and delivery of the
marijuana based upon (1) Pedraza’s testimony that he obtained the
trailer from two other individuals; (2) Pedraza’s possession and
use of a two-way radio device and his incomplete explanation of its
use; and (3) the effort required to secrete such a large quantity
of marijuana. See United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657,
661 (5th Cir. 2002).
Pedraza argues that his conviction was obtained through guilt
by association based on evidence that he associated with trial
witness Hector Alonzo. Pedraza has failed to show reversible error
as juries are presumed to have followed the trial judge’s limiting
instruction, informing them that the evidence of Alonzo’s
conviction could be considered in evaluating the credibility of
Alonzo’s testimony but could not be considered in determining
Pedraza’s guilt. United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 400 (5th
Cir. 1999).
Pedraza requests a new trial. He argues that the Government
2
presented false evidence with respect to the testimony of Agent
Roberto Perez and a report prepared by Perez. However, Pedraza has
failed to show that Perez’s testimony, or his report, was actually
false. United States v. O’Keefe, 128 F.3d 885, 893 (5th Cir.
1997).
Pedraza also argues that he is entitled to a new trial based
on allegedly improper questions and comments by the prosecuting
attorney. Pedraza has not shown an entitlement to relief as the
trial judge gave an effective limiting instruction, curing any
conceivable prejudice. United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328,
1341 (5th Cir. 1994).
Pedraza also suggests that the Government implied in closing
argument that it had additional knowledge of his involvement with
the marijuana, misrepresented that Pedraza had violated the law by
occupying a warehouse, and vouched for the credibility of
Government witnesses and opined as to Pedraza’s veracity. Pedraza
has failed to show plain error. See id.
Finally, Pedraza argues that, taken together, the alleged
instances of Government misconduct in his prosecution constitute
outrageous conduct requiring that his convictions be reversed and
that the case be dismissed. However, Pedraza has failed to show
that he suffered prejudice as a result of any of the alleged
individual instances of misconduct. United States v. Birdsell, 775
F.2d 645, 654 (5th Cir. 1985).
3
AFFIRMED.
4