Rosezzettea Lee Lopez v. United States

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324 prohibits transporting an undocumented person in furtherance of unlawful presence. Furthermore, Congress imposed a heightened penalty for this crime only when the transportation is done “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”1 That requirement separates the basic transportation offense from an offense committed for a narrow set of purposes, and the distinction protects against expanding the enhanced penalty beyond the statutory limitation which Congress enacted. Petitioner Rosezzettea Lee Lopez was convicted of transporting undocumented persons for private financial gain near Eagle Pass, Texas. The government introduced no meaningful direct evidence that petitioner was paid, promised payment, or agreed upon compensation for transporting the four individuals who formed the basis of the charged transportation offense. Instead, it relied on prior paid transports, generalized smuggling-pattern testimony, and inferences from phone communications. The Fifth Circuit nevertheless affirmed, holding that the jury could infer the private-financial-gain element from the surrounding evidence. The question presented is therefore as follows: May § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i)’s private-financial-gain element be satisfied by evidence of prior paid transports and generalized smuggling-pattern evidence, without proof of a payment arrangement concerning the persons actually transported? 1 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).