5th Cir.

United States v. Luna

March 16, 2026 ·24-40702 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Julio Cesar Luna's convictions for transporting illegal aliens, ruling the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss a biased juror. The court also vacated an amended judgment entered by the district court while the appeal was pending, finding the lower court lacked jurisdiction to alter the record during that time.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:37

Julio Cesar Luna was convicted in the Southern District of Texas of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien and transportation of an illegal alien. During the trial, a seated juror was dismissed after the district court found she was unable to remain impartial. Luna appealed, arguing that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion, lacked factual support, and was based on legally irrelevant reasons. Additionally, while this appeal was pending, the district court entered an amended judgment to correct a clerical error in the original judgment. The Fifth Circuit addressed both the validity of the juror dismissal and the district court's authority to amend the judgment during the appeal.

The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the juror dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c), a trial court has broad discretion to replace a juror who cannot remain impartial. The Fifth Circuit noted that the dismissed juror asserted her own bias multiple times, and the district court relied on her demeanor to conclude she could not be impartial. Citing United States v. Ebron and United States v. Spiegel, the court emphasized that it will not second-guess such findings if they are plausible in light of the entire record. The court further held that Luna could not show the required prejudice because there was a sound basis for the judge's exercise of discretion. Regarding the amended judgment, the court relied on United States v. Willis to establish that a district court lacks jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment while an appeal is pending. This jurisdictional bar applies even when the amendment is intended to correct a clerical error.

Luna's convictions stand, but the procedural record must be corrected. The district court's amended judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the limited purpose of reentering the corrected judgment. This clarifies that district courts cannot modify judgments to fix clerical errors once an appeal has been filed, preserving the appellate court's exclusive jurisdiction over the record during that period.

Play