United States v. Villagomez-Casteneda

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALFREDO VILLAGOMEZ-CASTENEDA, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GUADALUPE VASQUEZ-ZURITA, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIS HUMBERTO JACOBO-VILLAVAZO, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIS FERNANDO HERRERA-DE LA PENA, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REYNALDO ALDANA-SALINAS, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NARCISO DAVILA-MATA, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE ESTEBAN-AQUINO, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUCERO CALIXTO-ALPIZAR, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN REYES-FRANCISCO, Defendant.

Case No. 19-mj-11286-RBM-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-11684-RBM-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-11779-RBM-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-24515-RNB-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-24525-FAG-BAS-1

Case 19-mj-24542-RAM-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-24692-MDD-BAS-1

Case No. 19-mj-24695-MDD-BAS-1

Case No. 20-mj-08082-RBM-BAS-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

October 5, 2020

ORDER DENYING APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION AND AFFIRMING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (ECF No. 9)

ORDER DENYING APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION AND AFFIRMING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (ECF No. 8)

ORDER DENYING APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION AND AFFIRMING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (ECF No. 10)¹

ORDER DENYING APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION AND AFFIRMING CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (ECF No. 7)

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Each of the above Defendants pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to attempted illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1), and each was immediately sentenced to time served. In each case, as part of the plea colloquy, the Magistrate Judge advised the Defendant that the elements of the offense to which he or she was pleading guilty were: (1) that Defendant was an alien, (2) that Defendant had the specific intent to enter the United States at a time and place other than as designated by immigration officers, (3) that Defendant had the specific intent to enter the United States free from official restraint and (4) that Defendant did something that was a substantial step towards committing the crime that strongly corroborated his or her intent to commit the crime. In most cases, the defense counsel objected to these elements, arguing that, as an element of the offense, the Government was also required to prove that at the time the Defendant attempted to enter the United States illegally, the Defendant knew he or she was an alien.²

After advising each Defendant of the elements of the offense, the Magistrate Judge proceeded to ask each Defendant questions to determine whether there was a factual basis for the plea. In each case, the Magistrate Judge asked the Defendant whether he or she was a citizen of the United States. In each case, the Defendant answered that he or she was not, without voicing any confusion or grounds for claiming citizenship.

Each Defendant now appeals the conviction following this guilty plea, raising almost identically worded issues on appeal: (1) the Magistrate Judge misinformed the Defendant of the elements because there was no mention of the requirement that the Defendant knew he or she was an alien at the time of entry; (2) Section 1325 is facially unconstitutional in light of Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017); and (3) Section 1325 is void for vagueness and violates the non-delegation doctrine.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A defendant may appeal a magistrate judge's judgment of conviction or sentence to a district judge within 14 days of its entry." Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(B); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3402. "The defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo by a district judge." Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(D). Rather, the appeal's scope "is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment entered by a district judge." Id.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Knowledge of Alienage Is Not an Element of Section 1325

Defense counsel first argues that the Magistrate Judge violated Rule 11 when omitting an element of Section 1325. According to defense counsel, the Magistrate Judge should have advised each Defendant that an additional element was that the Defendant knew he or she was an alien at the time of entry. See Defendant's Opening Brief (citing United States v. Hernandez, 504 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished); United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005)). Both Hernandez and Smith-Baltiher concerned whether a defendant could present a good faith, if mistaken, belief that he was a citizen at the time of his illegal entry in a Section 1326 prosecution. In each case, the Ninth Circuit ruled the defendant could raise such a defense because in a Section 1326prosecution, the Government is required to prove that the defendant has the specific intent to enter the United States without permission. The fact that a defendant may have thought he had a legal right to enter could negate this intent.

As a preliminary matter, none of the named Defendants expressed any confusion or good faith belief that he or she was a citizen of the United States at the time of entering the United States. When the Magistrate Judge asked each Defendant whether he or she was a citizen of the United States, each forthrightly answered, "No."

Second, the elements of Section 1325(a) are different than that of Section 1326(a). In a Section 1325(a) prosecution, the key is whether the defendant had the specific intent to enter the United States at a time and place other than as designated by immigration officers. In a Section 1326(a) prosecution, the key is whether the defendant had the specific intent to enter the United States without the consent of the U.S. Attorney General. Thus, a defendant can be prosecuted for an attempt to violate Section 1326 if he or she comes to a Port of Entry and falsely claims U.S. citizenship. Not so for a Section 1325 prosecution. A Section 1325 prosecution requires that a defendant not enter through a Port of Entry. Thus, in both Hernandez and Smith-Baltiher, the defendant, who came to the Port of Entry and claimed U.S. citizenship, should have been allowed to present evidence that he believed this was true. There is no such corresponding element in a Section 1325 prosecution.

Finally, there is no requirement that a judge, when taking a plea, outline all possible defenses to a defendant before the plea can be accepted. The judge is only required to lay out the elements of the offense, which in this case, was done.

Defense counsel also argues that the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), required the Magistrate Judge to add an element of knowledge of alienage to the Section 1325 elements. Rehaif concerned the scope of the word "knowingly" in the context of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Contrary to those statutes, Congress did not incorporate the word "knowingly" into Section 1325.

Furthermore, the Court in Rehaif was particularly concerned that failure to incorporate a scienter requirement would result in prosecution of innocent conduct. No such concern exists with Section 1325. Even those who are not aliens are not allowed to enter the United States at a time and place other than as designated by immigration officers. See United States v. Nunez-Soberanis, 406 F. Supp. 3d 835, 844 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1459).

Therefore, Rehaif is distinguishable, and there is no requirement that the Government prove a defendant knew he or she was an alien at the time the defendant attempted to enter the United States at a place not designated by immigration officers.

B. Morales-Santana Does Not Render Section 1325 Unconstitutional

Each Defendant argues that United States v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017), renders Section 1325 unconstitutional. This Court agrees with those courts that have held Morales-Santana is inapplicable to Section 1325. See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez-Ortiz, 370 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2019) ("Morales-Santana does not address the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and the severability clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for offending provisions to be stricken without affecting or invalidating the whole."); see also United States v. Duffy, 773 F. App'x 947, 949 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) ("The severability clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') dictates that the remainder of [the Act] was not affected by Morales-Santana.").

This Court adopts the reasoning in those cases and finds that Section 1325 is not unconstitutional.

C. The Statute Does Not Violate the Non-Delegation Doctrine, Nor Is It Unconstitutionally Vague

Section 1325 makes it a crime for a non-citizen to enter or attempt to enter the United States at a time or place "other than as designated by immigration officers." Defense counsel argues this violates the non-delegation doctrine because Congress has delegated to immigration officers the ability to determine the scope of a criminal provision withoutproviding the executive branch official with an intelligible principle to guide the official's discretion.

Congress may not delegate to another branch "powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative." Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2123 (2019). However, Congress "may confer substantial discretion on executive agencies to implement and enforce laws." Id. The Supreme Court has acknowledged "that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989). Thus, "a statutory delegation is constitutional as long as Congress 'lay[s] down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.'" Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2123 (alterations in...