U.S. v. Colwell
| Decision Date | 24 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2538,84-2538 |
| Citation | 764 F.2d 1070 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelda Karen COLWELL, Defendant-Appellant. (Summary Calendar). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sharon Trigo, Laredo, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Daniel K. Hedges, U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, Susan Yarborough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Convicted of conspiracy to bring undocumented Mexican mothers and their Mexican-born infants into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1), and of aiding and abetting the unlawful procurement of false birth documents, contrary to 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2 and 1425(a), Nelda Karen Colwell appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Finding this challenge to be without merit, we affirm.
Colwell and her friend Sandy Green each adopted a Mexican infant and then became involved in locating Mexican children for prospective adoptive parents. They were successful in their efforts and approximately 70 babies were adopted. Colwell and Green typically located the infants, informed the adoptive parents who would adopt the children in Mexico and then legally return to the United States. The delays and red tape apparently proved too much because the modus operandi changed, at least in the instances recounted in the indictment. Under the modified, illegal procedure, the Mexican mother and child were brought into the United States without documentation. Thereafter the services of a midwife were retained and the midwife prepared false birth registration papers. With this birth registration the child was subject to adoption in any court of competent jurisdiction.
The government's case rested primarily on the testimony of San Juana Martinez-Lopez, a Mexican national who assisted Colwell in locating several infants. At least two involved illegal activity. In the first such instance, Cida Resendez gave birth to a girl in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico and wished to place her for adoption. Martinez notified Colwell who told Martinez to "cross the baby into Texas," contact a midwife and have the infant's birth registered as if she were born in the United States. Colwell made all logistical and financial arrangements for the parties. The mother and child were brought into the United States without appropriate documentation and false birth papers were prepared for the infant. The adoptive parents subsequently arrived in Laredo, Texas, met Martinez under the golden McDonald arch, and took possession of the baby.
The second case involved a baby boy. The scenario was the same. Colwell made all arrangements and telephoned Martinez and told her to "cross the baby and go ahead and talk to the midwife." The boy came in undocumented, the same midwife was contacted, and false birth registration papers were prepared. Delivery of the child to the adoptive parents took place at a Laredo hotel.
On appeal our review is limited to a determination of whether "the evidence is sufficient to justify the trial judge, as trier of the facts, in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty." United States v. Jennings, 726 F.2d 189, 190 (5th Cir.1984), quoting Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858 (5th Cir.1971).
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. "The essential elements of the offense of conspiracy are an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime and an overt act by one of them in furtherance of the agreement." United States v. Graves, 669 F.2d 964, 969 (5th Cir.1982). To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government must establish that a conspiracy existed, that the accused knew of the conspiracy, intended to join it and voluntarily did so. United States v. Avila-Dominguez, 610 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir.1980). The government also must establish that the accused possessed the same degree of criminal intent necessary for the underlying substantive offense. United States v. Nelson, 733 F.2d 364 (5th Cir.1984). In this case the substantive offense was the bringing of an alien into the United States unlawfully, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Stovall, 86-1453
...activity, participated in it in an effort to bring it about, and sought by his actions to make it succeed. See United States v. Colwell, 764 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Martinez, 555 F.2d 1269, 1272 (5th Cir.1977). Thus, an aiding and abetting offense has two components......
-
United States v. Nepal, 17-10228
...apply in these circumstances. We will not rely on it, either.5 Our sole precedential Section 1425(a) decision, United States v. Colwell , 764 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1985), involved review of the conviction of a U.S. citizen who made false statements to obtain citizenship for others, namely, by......
-
U.S. v. Manotas-Mejia
...of the conspiracy and intentionally joined it. United States v. Fowler, 735 F.2d 823, 826 (5th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Colwell, 764 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir.1985) (defendant must intentionally and voluntarily join the conspiracy); Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d at 981 (defendant must int......
-
U.S. v. Ortiz-Loya
...Participation means that the defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct designed to aid the venture." United States v. Colwell, 764 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir.1985). See United States v. Westbo, 746 F.2d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.1984). Thus, Ortiz-Loya can be convicted of aiding and abetting on......