Mills v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3595. |
| Citation | 273 F. 625 |
| Parties | MILLS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied August 1, 1921.
Beeler & Sullivan and C. A. Brinkley, all of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
Robert C. Saunders, U.S. Atty., and George E. Mathieu, Asst. U.S Atty., Both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced under an indictment which charged that on January 18, 1920, she knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully attempted to return and enter the United States from foreign territory contiguous thereto, to wit, the Dominion of Canada; the Secretary of Labor not theretofore having consented to any reapplication by her for admission into the United States, she having been theretofore, on July 29, 191m, arrested and deported from the United States of America to the Dominion of Canada, on the charge that she had been found in the United States connected with the management of a house of prostitution in the United States, and the arrest and deportation having been made by virtue of a warrant issued March 13, 19178 by the Department of Labor. The warrant was set forth in full, and it recited, among other things, that the plaintiff in error was found in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 874).
Error is assigned to the order overruling the demurrer to the indictment, and it is contended that the indictment fails to charge an offense, in that the warrant of deportation therein set forth, which was dated March 13, 1917, was expressly based upon the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, an act which went into effect on May 1, 1917, and was not in force at the date of the warrant. The previous Act of February 20 1907 (34 Stat. 898), as amended in 1910 (36 Stat. 264), was in force, however, and the provisions of that law as amended are identical with the provisions of the Act of February 5, 1917, so far as they concern the charge against the plaintiff in error.
A similar contention was presented to this court in Akira Ono v. United States (C.C.A.) 267 F. 359, where the order of the Secretary of Labor, directing the arrest of a Japanese person and ordering that he be granted a hearing to show cause why he should not be deported, recited that he had entered the United States in violation of the Act of February 5, 1917, although the entry occurred before the passage of the act, this court held that the erroneous mention of the statute of February 5, 1917, was unimportant, for the reason that the real question was whether the case showed that the appellant was found illegally here, and, if so, whether there existed legal authority for his deportation. In Guiney v. Bonham (C.C.A.) 261 F. 582, 8 A.L.R. 1282, we held that, although a warrant of arrest for deportation is in terms based on a particular statute, the alien may be deported under a later statute, which, under the facts charged, is applicable. Other cases of like import are United States v. Uhl, 211 F. 628, 128 C.C.A. 560, United States v. Williams, 200 F. 538, 118 C.C.A.
The plaintiff in error refers to the Act of February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4289 1/4 b) which provides for the denial of admission to the United States of all 'persons who have been deported under any of the provisions' thereof, 'and who may again seek admission within one year from the date of such deportation, unless prior to their re-embarkation at the foreign port or their attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Labor shall have consented to their reapplying for admission,' and contends that by implication it follows that a deported alien has the right to re-enter the United States after the expiration of the one-year period. We find no merit in the proposition. Section 4 of the act (section 4289 1/4 bb) provides in plain terms that any alien who shall, after he has been excluded and deported, or arrested and deported, in pursuance of the provisions of this act, which relate to prostitutes, procurers, or other like...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rangel-Perez
...and 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2530 (3d ed. 1940). The application of this rule of evidence is well illustrated in Mills v. United States, 9 Cir., 1921, 273 F. 625, 627-628. There the defendant had been ordered deported as an alien who had been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude. ......
-
Pena-Cabanillas v. United States
...In two cases the Ninth Circuit has reviewed a related problem but has not gone as far at the Rangel case, supra. Mills v. United States, 9 Cir., 273 F. 625 (1921), and Farrell v. United States, 381 F.2d 368 (1967); cert. den. 389 U.S. 963, 88 S.Ct. 349, 19 L.Ed.2d 377, both held that once s......
-
U.S. v. Resendiz-Ponce
...on dicta from a 1921 decision to argue that the overt act related to an attempted reentry is an actual reentry. Mills v. United States, 273 F. 625, 627(9th Cir.1921) ("The attempt is in itself ... the act of crossing the boundary line into the United States."); quoted in United States v. Co......
-
USA. v. Beltran, CORRALES-BELTRA
...apart from entering or being found in the United States. This conclusion also logically follows from our decision in Mills v. United States, 273 F. 625 (9th Cir. 1921), which involved an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully attempting to return and......