Lеanna Sanchez appeals her convictions from two separate criminal trials. 1 The final judgment in both trials was handed down on June 19, 1990. In the first trial, Sanchez was convicted of one count of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and one count of harboring an illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(C). In the second trial, Sanchez was convicted of one count of conspiracy, five counts of creating and supplying false writings and documents for use in immigration applications, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(7)(A)(ii), and five counts of filing immigration documents containing false or fraudulent statements, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(7)(A)(i). Sanсhez claims that the district court erred in admitting videotaped depositions at trial without a showing by the government that the witnesses were unavailable; that she received ineffective assistance of counsel; that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; and that the court еrred in dismissing her Jencks Act request for documents in the government’s possession. Because these arguments are without merit or are not properly before this court, we affirm.
In July 1989, Sanchez and her husband met with three illegal aliens at a restaurant *378 in Aurora, Illinois. Mr. Sanchez told the illegal aliens that he could arrange to get immigration papers for them. During the meeting, Mrs. Sanchez and another woman accepted $140 from the aliens and wrote out rеceipts. Mrs. Sanchez later prepared “work papers” and “immigration papers,” both of which were signed by the aliens at the Sanchez’ home. In early August, the three illegal aliens were arrested in Musca-tine, Iowa. On August 28, 1989, the police arrested Sanchez and her husband. The government filed a motion on August 30, 1989, to take evidentiary depositions of the aliens. On September 6, 1989, attorney Ray Sullins appeared on behalf of both Mr. and Mrs. Sanchеz at the videotaped depositions. On September 20, 1989, a grand jury charged Mrs. Sanchez and her husband with one count of conspiracy to transpоrt and harbor illegal aliens, four counts of harboring illegal aliens, and eight counts of transporting illegal aliens. On October 2, 1989, the magistrate judge discussed thе problems of joint representation with Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez. At that time, Mrs. Sanchez waived her right to separate counsel. A few weeks later, Mrs. Sanchez changed her mind and retained independent counsel. The trial began on December 5, 1989. The jury convicted Mrs. Sanchez of one count of harboring illegal aliens and one count of conspiracy.
On July 17, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez were charged with one count of conspiracy, nine counts of filing immigration applications containing false or fraudulent statements, and nine counts of creating and supplying false writings and documents for use in such applications. At the subsequent trial, Celedonio Rangel testified that he had signed false affidavits for illegal aliens stating that he was their work crew leader. Rangel testified that he was at the Sanchez’ home the first time he signed these papers. Mrs. Sanchez’ attorney moved for the production of all thе affidavits signed by Rangel and filed with the INS, arguing that the affidavits were statements under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The court denied the motion, ruling that the forms were not “statements of the witnesses relating to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified with respect to the meaning of Section 3500(b).” Mrs. Sanchez was convictеd on eleven of the nineteen counts.
Leanna Sanchez first argues that the videotaped depositions should not have been introduced аt trial because the government failed to make the showing of unavailability required by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 804(a)(5) of thе Federal Rules of Evidence. This argument is without merit. Sanchez first objected to the use of the videotapes on the morning of trial through her attorney at trial, Murray Bell. Her original attorney, who had represented both Sanchez and her husband at the depositions, testified that he had consulted with both of thеm when the government moved to take the depositions of the illegal aliens and that both had consented to the use of the videotapes. Thеrefore, Sanchez waived her right to object. The district court properly admitted the videotaped depositions into evidence.
Sanсhez next argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because she was represented by the same attorney as her husband for the first two months of this case and because their attorney did not object to the videotaping of the depositions. As a general rulе, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.
United States v. Murphy,
Sanchez next argues that the jury had insufficient evidence to convict her on the harboring of illegal aliens and conspiracy counts of the September 20, 1989, indictment. When reviewing a sufficiency of
*379
the evidence claim, this court exаmines the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and gives the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
United States v. Springer,
Sanchez’ final claim is that the district court erred when it denied her motion for production of the affidavits signed by Rangel and filed with the INS. Even assuming the district court erred, we affirm Sanchez’ convictions because the error was harmless. As this court stated in
United States v. Roberts,
For the reasons given, we affirm the appellant’s convictions.
Notes
. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.