United States v. Artemio Gonzalez-Andrade
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio GONZALEZ-ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Anthony J. Battaglia (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen R. Reinhardt (author), Edward Leavy, Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50495 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01494-AJB v. MEMORANDUM* ARTEMIO GONZALEZ-ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Artemio Gonzalez-Andrade appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gonzalez-Andrade contends that the district court erred in failing to give a voluntary intoxication instruction sua sponte. As Gonzalez-Andrade acknowledges, we review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Bear, 439 F.3d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the trial transcript does not reflect an evidentiary basis to conclude that Gonzalez-Andrade was intoxicated, much less sufficiently intoxicated as to be unable to form the specific intent to enter the United States, the district court did not plainly err in failing to give the instruction.
See United States v. Fejes, 232 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Washington, 819 F.2d 221, 225 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court did not err in failing to instruct on voluntary intoxication when testimony established that defendant’s behavior during the offense was inconsistent with intoxication).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50495