	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

REVISED - AUGUST 12, 1999
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50927
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFONSO PEREZ-VALDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
________________________
July 22, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Alfonso Perez-Valdez ("Perez"), appeals his
conviction on two counts of bringing aliens into the United
States for commercial advantage or personal financial gain, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Perez contends that
the district court erred in refusing to give proposed
instructions that would have excluded from the statute's scope a
defendant who brings aliens into the United States solely in
return for his own entry or transportation. Perez's proposed
instructions are based primarily on a comment to the 1996
Sentencing Guidelines,
§ 2L1.1 that provides, for sentence enhancement purposes, that an
alien smuggler acting for commercial advantage or financial gain

No. 98-50927
-2-
does not include one who acts solely in return for entry or
transportation into the country.
This Court reviews the refusal to provide a requested jury
instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Asibor,
109 F.3d 1023, 1034 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 638
(1997). District courts enjoy substantial latitude in
formulating jury instructions. Id. Accordingly, this Court will
reverse only if the requested jury instruction: (1) was a
substantially correct statement of the law; (2) was not
substantially covered in the charge as a whole; and (3) concerned
an important point in the trial, the omission of which seriously
impaired the defendant's ability to present an effective defense.
Id.
Perez's interpretation of "commercial advantage" and
"personal financial gain" in Section 1324 has no foundation in
the text of the statute and is contrary to its plain language.
Perez's proposed instructions therefore are not substantially
correct statements of the law. Although Perez admitted that he
would have been required to pay $650 if he had not driven the
aliens into the country, Perez was free to argue that his actions
did not constitute a commercial advantage or private financial
gain. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to give the proposed instructions.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.