United States v. Jose Villegas-Guitierrez , 500 F. App'x 692 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 14 2012
    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. 11-50523
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00517-JLS-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOSE FERNANDO VILLEGAS-
    GUTIERREZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
    Pasadena, California
    Before: BERZON, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Fernando Villegas-Gutierrez appeals his jury conviction for illegal
    reentry after deportation, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    . We affirm the judgment
    of the district court.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    1. The district court did not err in refusing to provide Villegas’s requested
    jury instruction on official restraint. There was no evidence in the record that
    Villegas was under continuous surveillance at any time before or after he crossed
    the border into the United States. See United States v. Bello–Bahena, 
    411 F.3d 1083
    , 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction
    when the instruction is “supported by law” and has “some foundation in the
    evidence” (quoting United States v. Fejes, 
    232 F.3d 696
    , 702 (9th Cir. 2000))). The
    only evidence of actual surveillance was the triggering of a seismic sensor at the
    border which, under our case law, does not constitute official restraint. See United
    States v. Vela-Robles, 
    397 F.3d 786
    , 789 (9th Cir. 2005).
    The presence of remote-controlled, 24-hour cameras in the area where
    Villegas was apprehended does not constitute sufficient evidence that Villegas
    entered the United States under continuous observation to merit an official restraint
    instruction. In United States v. Castellanos-Garcia, we rejected as “mere
    speculation” the defendant’s argument that he could have been observed by one of
    the fifteen or more Border Patrol agents in the area where he was arrested. 
    270 F.3d 773
    , 776 (9th Cir. 2001). Villegas’s argument that he may have been under
    camera surveillance is equally speculative, particularly because the arresting
    Border Patrol agent testified that he received no notification regarding Villegas’s
    -2-
    location after the sensor was triggered, and because it is unlikely that such
    information would have been withheld if Villegas had been spotted by agents
    monitoring Border Patrol cameras. Accordingly, while Villegas’s proposed jury
    instruction on official restraint was supported by law, it lacked any foundation in
    the evidence. The district court did not err in declining to issue it.
    2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged
    testimony of the A-file custodian. The court’s in limine ruling reserved the
    possibility of defense objections to the custodian’s testimony at trial for lack of
    foundation. No such objection was made. Nor was admission of the custodian’s
    statements plain error, as the statements did not obviously require that the
    custodian be qualified as an expert.
    3. Finally, even assuming that the district court’s limitations on cross-
    examination of the A-file custodian violated the Confrontation Clause, any error
    was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Schoneberg, 
    396 F.3d 1036
    , 1044 (9th Cir. 2005). Villegas was not prejudiced by the district court’s
    restriction. The existence of alternative ways to apply for readmission other than
    Form I-212 was not pertinent to the elements of the offense under § 1326. The
    relevant question was not whether there was any evidence that Villegas had
    applied for permission to reenter but whether there was any evidence that he had
    -3-
    received such permission. The A-file custodian’s testimony concerning his search
    of Villegas’s records was sufficient to indicate that no such permission had been
    given. The court’s limitation on cross-examination regarding the possible methods
    of applying for permission could not have affected the jury’s assessment of the
    evidence concerning whether any permission was actually given.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    -4-