United States v. Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Fletcher (author), Kim M. Wardlaw, Barry G. Silverman
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50275 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM * ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50027 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1 v.
ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 6, 2011 Pasadena, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for attempted reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He claims that the district court precluded him from presenting a defense that he had a good faith belief that Uniform Commercial Code documents filed with the California Secretary of State gave him a legal right to enter the United States. We affirm.
The district court did not preclude the defense from presenting evidence or arguing a good faith defense in closing. Rather, it advised defense counsel that it would give a jury instruction explaining that the UCC governs commercial transactions, not immigration law, if defense counsel argued the applicability of the UCC in closing argument. Such an instruction would have been a correct statement of the law. Defense counsel then chose not to make the argument. Our decision in United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005), does not control this case, because in Smith-Baltiher, the defendant introduced evidence of his mother's United States citizenship. Id. at 922 & n.8. In contrast, here, as the district court found, Mr. Hernandez proffered “no evidence” that he had a good faith belief that the documents he presented had “any force or effect on his ability to enter the United States.”
Because the jury instructions given adequately covered specific intent as required by United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), Hernandez-Ramirez was not entitled to any additional “good faith” jury instruction. United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED 1.
1 Appellee's motion to permit argument by telephone on December 6, 2011, is GRANTED.