United States v. Morales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40137
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSENDO JESUS MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-214-1
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rosendo Jesus Morales appeals his convictions following jury
trial for aiding and abetting in the transportation of currency
exceeding $10,000, without filing the required form, and aiding
and abetting in the evasion of a currency reporting requirement
by concealing more than $10,000 in a vehicle and attempting to
transport it. Morales was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
33 months on each count, the terms to run concurrently.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-40137
-2-
Morales argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for new trial based on Morales’ argument
that the exclusion of testimony at trial resulted in a
miscarriage of justice. He argues that he sought to present
relevant evidence to support his defense that he was unaware of
the presence of currency concealed in a spare tire located under
his truck. He further argues that the district court erred in
determining that the evidence was cumulative.
The parties agreed that the only disputed issue at trial was
whether Morales had knowledge of the currency in the tire under
his truck. The jury was aware that Morales told agents that he
was going to Mexico for a medical visit. However, as the
district court correctly determined, the fact that Morales’ trip
may have also had a legitimate purpose did not preclude a jury
finding that Morales knew that he was illegally concealing and
transporting funds.
Because the excluded evidence had little relevance and was
cumulative, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to admit the evidence. Thus, the denial of the motion
for new trial sought based on the exclusion of such evidence did
not result in a miscarriage of justice. The conviction is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --