United States of America v. Jose Luis Miramontes-Banda

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS MIRAMONTES-BANDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00006-LMB-2)
Submitted: May 1, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Jose Luis Miramontes-Banda of
conspiring to transport illegal aliens (Count 1), in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(I) (2006), and transporting
illegal aliens knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact
that such aliens had come to, entered, and remained in the
United States illegally (Count 2), in violation of
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Miramontes-Banda appeals his conviction,
challenging the district court’s jury instruction on the meaning
of the phrase “reckless disregard.” Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion “[t]he decision
to give or not to give a jury instruction.” United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 186 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Silveus, 542
F.3d 993, 1002 (3d Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of
offense). In reviewing the jury instructions, this court
“consider[s] whether taken as a whole and in the context of the
entire charge, the instructions accurately and fairly state the
controlling law.” Allen, 491 F.3d at 187 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The district court’s refusal to
grant a requested jury instruction is reversible error only if
the proffered instruction “(1) was correct; (2) was not
substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that
failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the
defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.” United States v.
Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 477-78 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have carefully
reviewed the record on appeal. We conclude that the district
court’s instruction fairly and accurately stated the law. Thus,
we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s instruction on
reckless disregard.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --