United States v. Arturo Castrellon, 636 F. App'x 204

Gallegos, a Barrio Azteca lieutenant in Juarez, ordered a hit targeting vehicles he believed belonged to a rival cartel; the attack killed three adults and left children as survivors.
Gallegos directed Valles (the Juarez–El Paso communications lead) to ask Aztecas in El Paso to check the Texas registration of a white Honda Pilot observed near his home.
The hit team surveilled two similar vehicles leaving a birthday party and carried out the shootings.
Mexican authorities arrested Gallegos; he was transferred to the U.S. and convicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country (18 U.S.C. § 956).
On appeal Gallegos challenged sufficiency of evidence for two statutory elements: that at least one conspirator committed an overt act in the United States, and that at least one conspirator was in the United States when he conspired.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error (Gallegos had moved for judgment of acquittal midtrial but did not renew the motion after presenting evidence) and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: overt act in the U.S.	Gallegos: no evidence a co-conspirator performed any overt act in the U.S.	The government: Valles likely called El Paso and the El Paso Aztecas received the call; receiving that call in the U.S. was an overt act.	Court: Affirmed — record not devoid of evidence; the phone call suffices as an overt act.
Sufficiency: at least one conspirator in the U.S.	Gallegos: no proof any conspirator in El Paso was a coconspirator at the time of the conspiracy.	Gov’t: El Paso members who received the call were acting as coconspirators and thus were in the U.S. when they conspired.	Court: Affirmed — inference from routine communications and gang structure supports a finding that an El Paso member was a conspirator in the U.S.
Permissibility of circumstantial evidence	Gallegos: challenges need direct proof of agreement and overt acts.	Gov’t: Conspiracy and agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence and concerted actions.	Court: Reiterated that circumstantial evidence may establish conspiracy; jury may infer agreement from conduct.
Standard of review (preservation/plain error)	Gallegos: preserved sufficiency challenge by moving for judgment after government's case.	Govt: Because Gallegos failed to renew at close of all evidence, appellate review is for plain error (higher burden).	Court: Applied plain-error review and found the record was not devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, so no reversible error.

United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.) (preservation and plain-error review explained)
United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.) (plain-error four‑prong test and sufficiency-review principles)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑error framework)
United States v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815 (5th Cir.) (circumstantial evidence may establish conspiracy)
United States v. Virgen‑Moreno, 265 F.3d 276 (5th Cir.) (slight circumstantial evidence can connect an individual to a conspiracy)
United States v. Cardona‑Ramirez, [citation="358 F. App'x 562"] (5th Cir.) (telephone call received in the U.S. can constitute an overt act)
United States v. Martinez‑Herrera, [citation="539 F. App'x 598"] (5th Cir.) (elements of § 956 conspiracy)
United States v. Montgomery, 210 F.3d 446 (5th Cir.) (agreement may be implicit and inferred from circumstances)
United States v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526 (5th Cir.) (discussing elements of conspiracy to commit murder abroad)