United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 12, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41570
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTIN MATA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-966-01
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a jury trial, Martin Mata was convicted of one
count of transporting an illegal alien within the United States
to obtain financial gain. The district court sentenced him to
serve 48 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised
release. Mata now appeals his conviction.
Mata contends that the evidence adduced at trial is
insufficient to support his conviction. He argues that the
evidence was insufficient to identify him as the driver of a van
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41570
-2-
that was carrying several illegal aliens. The standard of review
for this issue is “whether any reasonable trier of fact could
have found that the evidence established the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Ortega
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
The evidence was sufficient to support Mata’s conviction.
A reasonable person could conclude that Mata was driving the van
based on agents’ testimony. Further, another witness squarely
identified Mata as the driver of the van. Mata has not shown
that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support
his conviction.
Mata also argues that counsel rendered ineffective
assistance for not moving to suppress the red shirt that he was
wearing when he was arrested. We decline to consider this claim
in this direct appeal. See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173,
179 (5th Cir. 1995).
Mata has shown no reversible error in the judgment of the
district court. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.