United States v. Galdino Ruiz-Hernandez
890 F.3d 202
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- In April 2015 Ruiz‑Hernandez accompanied Patricia Cervantes from Mexico into the U.S.: crossed the Rio Grande by boat, walked through brush, then swam across the Brownsville Ship Channel at night using inner tubes.
- While swimming in the dark, Cervantes was struck and killed by a Coast Guard vessel; Ruiz‑Hernandez found her, attempted resuscitation, and summoned help.
- Investigators found a $650 wire transfer to co‑defendant Gabriel Sanchez; $300 was converted to pesos and given to Ruiz‑Hernandez to pay the ranchero who ferried them across the Rio Grande. The recovered inner tube was small and unsuitable for an adult.
- Ruiz‑Hernandez was indicted and convicted of (1) conspiracy to bring in, transport, and harbor an alien resulting in death (8 U.S.C. §1324) and (2) transporting an alien for private financial gain resulting in death. Jury found death and financial‑gain elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- At sentencing the court applied U.S.S.G. §2L1.1(b)(6) (substantial risk of death/serious injury) and §2L1.1(b)(7) (resulting death) and imposed an 80‑month sentence after granting a small downward departure for voluntary disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ruiz‑Hernandez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to transport an alien | He lacked knowledge or reckless disregard that Cervantes was unlawfully present; he was helping her escape abuse | Circumstantial evidence (night crossing, use of smugglers, no legal entry) supports knowledge/recklessness and agreement to transport | Affirmed — evidence sufficed to infer knowledge or reckless disregard |
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantive transport offense | Same lack‑of‑knowledge argument | Same circumstantial evidence supports the §1324 transport offense | Affirmed — evidence sufficient |
| Financial‑gain element for aggravated offense | No proof he actually received money; therefore enhancement not warranted | Proof of purpose for financial gain can be inferred from circumstantial evidence (no prior relationship, co‑conspirator received payment) and actual payment not required | Affirmed — jury could find transport was for private financial gain |
| Resulting‑in‑death element and sentencing enhancements (§1324 & U.S.S.G.) | Death by Coast Guard vessel unforeseeable and thus not attributable to his conduct; Coast Guard conduct was the cause | It was foreseeable that swimming across a busy, unlit ship channel at night posed risk of being struck; his actions were a but‑for cause of death; foreseeability of specific manner not required | Affirmed — death was foreseeable in general; his conduct was a but‑for cause; §2L1.1(b)(6) and (b)(7) properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of §1324 conspiracy require knowledge or reckless disregard of unlawful presence)
- United States v. Williams, 449 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2006) (financial‑gain and resulting‑in‑death elements increase statutory maximum and must be proven to jury)
- United States v. Garcia, 883 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2018) (financial‑purpose element can be proven by circumstantial evidence; actual payment not required)
- United States v. De Jesus‑Ojeda, 515 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses foreseeability requirement for §2L1.1(b)(6))
- United States v. Solis‑Garcia, 420 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (focus on whether defendant’s conduct posed inherently dangerous risks to aliens)
- United States v. Muniz, 803 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2015) (sentencing enhancements reviewed for preponderance of evidence)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but‑for causation standard)