United States v. Daniel Vasquez, 682 F. App'x 285

Daniel Vasquez was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens and two counts of transporting undocumented aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
Prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument included remarks Vasquez later challenged as prosecutorial misconduct (attacking defense counsel’s integrity, misstating evidence, and improperly bolstering a co-defendant).
The district court sustained one defense objection to the prosecutor’s remarks but did not give a curative instruction; Vasquez did not request one. Other objections were not raised at trial.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed all contested remarks for plain error because Vasquez either received the relief sought at trial or did not object.
The Government’s case included accomplice testimony implicating Vasquez and Border Patrol testimony that undocumented aliens were found hidden in tractor-trailers Vasquez drove on two dates; the contested issues at trial were Vasquez’s knowledge and intent.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the prosecutor’s remarks were not clearly improper and, even if improper, did not affect Vasquez’s substantial rights given jury instructions and strong circumstantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s attack on defense counsel’s integrity was improper	Vasquez: prosecutor repeatedly impugned counsel’s integrity, warranting reversal	Government: remarks were permissible argument and responses to defense themes	Held: not clearly improper; reviewed for plain error and affirmed
Whether prosecutor materially misstated evidence	Vasquez: prosecutor misstated and injected facts not in evidence	Government: statements framed permissible inferences and challenged defense plausibility	Held: not clearly a misstatement; permissible argument about inferences
Whether prosecutor improperly bolstered co-defendant’s credibility	Vasquez: prosecutor improperly vouched for co-defendant	Government: remarks reiterated jury instructions on accomplice testimony and described lawful plea practice	Held: remarks could be viewed as permissible rebuttal, not improper bolstering
Whether any improper remarks affected substantial rights or verdict fairness	Vasquez: cumulative misconduct undermined fairness and verdict	Government: jury instructions and strong circumstantial evidence cured any prejudice	Held: even if improper, Vasquez failed to show prejudice to substantial rights; verdict affirmed

United States v. Anderson, 755 F.3d 782 (5th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review where defendant received district court relief)
United States v. Vargas, 580 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims)
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369 (5th Cir. 1995) (limits on treating prosecutor remarks as personal attacks)
United States v. Livingston, 816 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1987) (standards for evaluating prosecutorial remarks)
United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. en banc 2012) (permissible inferences and argument construction in closing)
United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271 (5th Cir. 1995) (use of accomplice testimony and permissible rebuttal)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for showing prejudice under plain-error review)
United States v. Thompson, 482 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2007) (jury instruction effect on curing prosecutorial misconduct)
United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (evaluating whether general instructions can cure prejudicial comments)