U.S. v. Morales-Rosales, MORALES-ROSALE
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before REAVLEY, KING and JOLLY; E. GRADY JOLLY |
| Citation | 838 F.2d 1359 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginoefendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. |
| Docket Number | D,MORALES-ROSALE,No. 87-2824 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 1988 |
Page 1359
v.
Regino MORALES-ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Summary Calendar.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 1360
Marjorie A. Meyers, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., James Sabalos, James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before REAVLEY, KING and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
Criminal defendant Regino Morales-Rosales challenges the sufficiency of the two-count criminal information under which he pled guilty to transporting an illegal alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1)(B). Specifically, Morales alleges that the criminal information fails to charge willful transportation in furtherance of the alien's unlawful activity. Because this is an essential element of the offense, we vacate Morales' conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss the information.
In April 1987, the Immigration and Naturalization Service filed a criminal complaint against Morales, charging that he knowingly transported illegal aliens within the United States in furtherance of their illegal immigration status. After waiving prosecution by indictment, Morales pled guilty to count 2 of a two-count information that charged violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. The district court sentenced him to five years imprisonment but suspended the sentence and placed him on three years probation. Morales filed a timely appeal.
On appeal, Morales argues that the criminal information under which he was convicted fails to charge an offense because it fails to charge that he acted willfully in furtherance of the alien's violation of the law. Morales argues that because willful transportation in furtherance of the alien's unlawful activity is an essential element of the offense proscribed by section 1324(a)(1)(B), the information is fatally defective and must be dismissed. We set out the indictment below. 1
Page 1361
The appellant's argument here is correct. To establish a violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1), the government must prove that the defendant acted willfully in furtherance of the alien's violation of the law. United States v. Merkt, 764 F.2d 266, 270 (5th Cir.1985). It is true, as the government argues, that the pertinent provision of section 1324 has been amended since Merkt was decided, during the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, P.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986). These changes, however, did not alter the express element of the offense that the defendant act "in furtherance of such violation of law." Section 1324(a)(1)(B) (1987). 2 The reasoning of Merkt, therefore, still applies. Specifically, "there must be a direct and substantial relationship between the transportation and its furtherance of the alien's presence in the United States." Merkt, 764 F.2d at 271 (quoting United States v. Moreno, 561 F.2d 1321, 1323 (9th Cir.1977)). See also United States v. Shaddix, 693 F.2d 1135, 1139 (5th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sanchez, Nos. 00-13347
...so that he may defend against the case or make a fully informed plea to the charge. See, e.g., United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. London, 550 F.2d 206, 211 (5th Cir. 1977)); DeBenedictis v. Wainwright, 674 F.2d 841, 842-843 (11th C......
-
U.S. v. Parmelee, Nos. 92-3479
...F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990); United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 568, 569 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1360 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Merkt, 764 F.2d 266, 270 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam); United States v. Moreno, 561 F.2d 1321, 1322 (9th......
-
U.S. v. Boyd, No. CV.02-2687-D/A.
...by § 2255 motion, indictment must fail to state any offense at all so that defect is jurisdictional); United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir. 1988)(same). Boyd does not contend that his guilty plea was involuntary. He clearly had the benefit of counsel and the face o......
-
United States v. Dominguez, No. 07–13405.
...1094] must prove “the defendant willfully transported an illegal alien” under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)); United States v. Morales–Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1360 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that Government must prove that defendant acted “willfully” to prove a violation of the transporting provision), ......
-
Davila v. State, No. 90-226
...in holding a defendant can question whether the charge states an offense even after his plea of guilty. United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Edrington, 726 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 704 F.2d 1382 (5th Cir.1983); State v. Br......
-
U.S. v. Boyd, No. CV.02-2687-D/A.
...by § 2255 motion, indictment must fail to state any offense at all so that defect is jurisdictional); United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir. 1988)(same). Boyd does not contend that his guilty plea was involuntary. He clearly had the benefit of counsel and the face o......
-
U.S. v. Parmelee, Nos. 92-3479
...F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990); United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 568, 569 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Morales-Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1360 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Merkt, 764 F.2d 266, 270 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam); United States v. Moreno, 561 F.2d 1321, 1322 (9th......
-
United States v. Dominguez, No. 07–13405.
...1094] must prove “the defendant willfully transported an illegal alien” under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)); United States v. Morales–Rosales, 838 F.2d 1359, 1360 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that Government must prove that defendant acted “willfully” to prove a violation of the transporting provision), ......