United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 11, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20231
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL VELEZ-CORTEZ; SANTO MIGUEL CELIS-CHAVEZ,
also known as Chirris,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CR-79-3
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Velez-Cortez appeals from his jury-verdict conviction
for conspiring to commit hostage taking. He argues that the
evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s
verdict. Santos Miguel Celis-Chavez appeals from the sentence
imposed following his jury-verdict conviction for harboring illegal
aliens for commercial advantage and private financial gain and
conspiring to commit hostage taking. He contends that the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
court erred by failing to grant him a sentencing adjustment for
having a mitigating role in the offense and that the trial court
erred by admitting evidence of an extrinsic offense.
Velez-Cortez limits his sufficiency challenge to the
Government’s establishment of the elements of the conspiracy
offense. When viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government, the circumstantial evidence produced at trial
established the requisite elements of the conspiracy offense.
Because a rational trier of fact could have found that this
evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Velez-Cortez
was guilty of conspiracy, the evidence was sufficient to support
the jury’s verdict. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318
(1979).
The district court’s refusal to grant Celis-Chavez a reduction
for his role in the offense is entitled to great deference and is
reviewed for clear error. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d
490, 503 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325,
1340 (5th Cir. 1991). The evidence produced at trial established
that Celis-Chavez actively participated in the kidnapping incident
that instigated the hostage taking offense. Accordingly, the
district court’s finding that Celis-Chavez did not have a
mitigating role in the instant offense must be upheld.
The district court’s ruling regarding the admission of
extrinsic offense evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1267-68 (5th Cir.
2
1991). Because the extrinsic offense evidence regarding Celis-
Chavez was relevant to an issue other than character and possessed
probative value that was not outweighed by substantially by the
danger of unfair prejudice, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting that evidence. See United States v.
Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1173-74 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, even if
the evidence had been improperly admitted, any error was rendered
harmless by the limiting instruction. See id. at 1174-75.
The district court’s judgments of conviction regarding both
Velez-Cortez and Celis-Chavez is AFFIRMED.
3