United States v. Ayala-Alas

In United States v. Ayala-Alas, No. 23-50226 (5th Cir. July 10, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected a variety of defense arguments and affirmed the trial convictions and 135-month sentence for importation and distribution of marijuana.

Holding 1: The district court did not err by providing Ayala-Alas only a Spanish interpreter, rather than a Tepehuan interpreter, or by denying his day-of-trial motion to continue based on lack of Spanish comprehension. The defendant did not raise those issues until the first day of trial, and the court questioned him under oath through a Spanish interpreter, at which time the defendant said “he was able to understand the trial using the Spanish interpreter.”

Holding 2: The district court did not err by denying Ayala-Alas’s other request for a continuance, which had been requested to receive outstanding discovery in the form of DEA lab results of the seized marijuana. Although a defendant has a right to inspect the Government’s evidence and have an independent chemical analysis performed, here, Ayala-Alas did not explain why he failed to conduct his own analysis of the marijuana sooner.

Holding 3: The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. At trial, agents testified that Ayala-Alas had admitted to them “that he received marijuana in Mexico, that he knew it was marijuana, and that he was carrying it across the border to the United States.”

Holding 4: Ayala-Alas did not present enough evidence at trial to justify giving the jury a duress instruction. A duress defense only applies when “there is a real emergency that leaves the defendant with no time to pursue any legal alternative and where he is in serious danger at the moment that he commits the offense.”

Holding 5: The district court did not err in any of its Sentencing Guidelines calculations. Of note, it was appropriate to apply the two-level enhancement for obstructing justice under USSG § 3C1.1 based “on the discrepancy between Ayala-Alas’s post-arrest statements and testimony at trial,” which supported a finding “that Ayala-Alas committed perjury at trial.”