United States v. Alonso-Esparza ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50746 Document: 00516802278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50746
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Oscar Alonso-Esparza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CR-346-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Oscar Alonso-Esparza appeals his bench-trial conviction for
personating another when applying for admission to the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). He asserts the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a claimed
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50746 Document: 00516802278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2023
No. 22-50746
custodial interrogation prior to being advised of his rights under Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
When considering the denial of a suppression motion, the district
court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error; its conclusions of law, de
novo. E.g., United States v. Nelson, 990 F.3d 947, 952 (5th Cir. 2021).
Because evidentiary rulings are subject to the harmless-error doctrine,
“[r]eversible error occurs only when the admission of evidence substantially
affects the rights of a party”. United States v. Clark, 577 F.3d 273, 287 (5th
Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Where the evidentiary ruling involves a
Miranda violation, it is the Government’s burden to show the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g., United States v. Arellano-Banuelos,
912 F.3d 862, 869 n.3 (5th Cir. 2019)
Even assuming the court erred in denying the suppression motion, any
error was harmless. Alonso does not challenge the stipulated facts (for the
bench trial subsequent to denial of the suppression motion) that, prior to the
alleged custodial interrogation, he presented a birth certificate bearing a
name different from his own to a Customs and Border Protection Officer at a
port of entry into the United States. Thus, the record—absent the
challenged evidence—sufficiently establishes Alonso personated another
when applying for admission into the United States. See United States v.
Knight, 514 F.2d 1286, 1286–87 (5th Cir. 1975) (affirming § 1546 conviction
where defendant presented birth certificate and state identification card
issued to different individual); see also United States v. Carillo-Colmenero, 523
F.2d 1279, 1283 (5th Cir. 1975) (clarifying § 1546 “is not limited to persons
applying for entry-type documents”). Accordingly, any assumed error did
not affect his substantial rights and was, therefore, harmless. See Arellano-
Banuelos, 912 F.3d at 869 n.3; Clark, 577 F.3d at 287–88.
AFFIRMED.
2