United States v. Chinchilla

Decision Date11 February 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-10987,19-10987
Citation987 F.3d 1303
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ruberman Ardon CHINCHILLA, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Amanda Perwin, Lisa Tobin Rubio, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney's Office, MIAMI, FL, Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elan I. Baret, Baret Law Group, Hollywood, FL, Nicole Noemi Sanchez, Escobar & Associates, PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

LAGOA, Circuit Judge:

A federal grand jury returned a two-count superseding indictment against Ruberman Ardon Chinchilla, charging him with violating 18 U.S.C § 1546(a) by allegedly using a fraudulent order of supervision to obtain a driver's license from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("Florida DHSMV"). 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) criminalizes the knowing use, attempt to use or possession of a forged, counterfeited, altered, fraudulently procured, or unlawfully obtained document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States. This appeal asks us to determine whether an order of supervision constitutes a "document prescribed by statute or regulation ... as evidence of authorized stay ... in the United States" under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13, 241.4, and 241.5, the United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement ("ICE") may issue an order of supervision to aliens unlawfully present in the United States. An order of supervision authorizes an unlawful alien to be released from custody into the community and to remain living in the United States for an indefinite period of time (often many years) pending removal. On its face, an order of supervision states that the alien is "permitted to be at large" subject to the conditions set forth in the order. Orders of supervision may authorize the alien to seek employment in the United States, see id. § 241.5(c), and various federal regulations identify orders of supervision as evidence of lawful presence in the United States for purposes of receiving Social Security and federal health care benefits. Additionally, the State of Florida accepts from applicants seeking to obtain a Florida driver's license an order of supervision as proof of legal presence in the United States.

Chinchilla moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for failing to state an offense under § 1546(a), arguing that the term "authorized stay" means "lawful presence" in the United States and that no federal statute or regulation expressly identifies an order of supervision as "evidence of authorized stay in the United States." The district court dismissed the superseding indictment after concluding that an order of supervision does not qualify as a document "prescribed by statute or regulation ... as evidence of authorized stay ... in the United States" as required by § 1546(a). After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse the district court's order dismissing the superseding indictment and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

To obtain a Florida driver's license, an applicant must provide the Florida DHSMV documents meeting certain federally-mandated minimum issuance standards that verify his identity and legal presence in the United States. See 6 C.F.R. § 37.11 (2019) (establishing minimum standards for states to issue driver's licenses and personal identification cards). One of the documents that the Florida DHSMV accepts as proof of legal presence in the United States is a federal immigration document called an order of supervision. Chinchilla, a native of Honduras, presented a fraudulent order of supervision to the Florida DHSMV on two separate occasions in his attempts to obtain a driver's license. Chinchilla succeeded on his second attempt and was later arrested for using a fraudulent order of supervision in that process.

The grand jury's superseding indictment charged Chinchilla with two counts of violating § 1546(a). Each count of the superseding indictment alleged that Chinchilla "knowingly possess[ed], us[ed], and attempt[ed] to use a document prescribed by statute and regulation as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, that is, a[n] ... Order of Supervision, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, and falsely made" in violation of § 1546(a).

Chinchilla moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for failing to state an offense under § 1546(a). In his motion to dismiss, Chinchilla argued that the term "authorized stay" means "lawful presence" in the United States and that no federal statute or regulation expressly identifies an order of supervision as "evidence of authorized stay in the United States." The district court granted Chinchilla's motion and dismissed the superseding indictment. The government moved for reconsideration of the dismissal order, which the district court denied. This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The interpretation of a criminal statute is a legal question we review de novo . United States v. Williams , 790 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court's legal conclusions are likewise reviewed de novo . United States v. Castro , 89 F.3d 1443, 1450 (11th Cir. 1996).

III. ANALYSIS

18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) states in pertinent part that:

Whoever knowingly ... uses, attempts to use, [or] possesses ... any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, ... or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained ... [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned ....

To prevail on a charge under this provision of § 1546(a), the government must prove three elements: (1) the defendant knowingly used, attempted to use, or possessed; (2) a document specified in the provision, or, as is the case here, a document prescribed by statute or regulation as evidence of authorized stay in the United States; and (3) the defendant knew that the document was "forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made." See United States v. Ryan-Webster , 353 F.3d 353, 360 n.11 (4th Cir. 2003). Only the second element is at issue in this appeal—whether an order of supervision is a "document prescribed by statute or regulation ... as evidence of authorized stay ... in the United States." Both the government and Chinchilla agree that there are no express definitions for the terms found in the "other document" clause.

Chinchilla advances two separate arguments in support of the district court's dismissal of the superseding indictment. First, Chinchilla argues that because an alien subject to an order of supervision necessarily maintains an unlawful immigration status, an order of supervision cannot be evidence of "authorized stay" in the United States. In support of his argument, Chinchilla contends that the phrase "authorized stay" used in § 1546(a) is defined in the Citizenship and Immigration Service's Adjudicator's Field Manual ("AFM"), which Chinchilla asserts uses the phrases "lawful presence" and "authorized stay" synonymously. Second, Chinchilla argues that an order of supervision does not fall within § 1546(a) ’s "other document" clause because no federal statute or regulation lists or otherwise identifies an order of supervision as "evidence of authorized stay in the United States."

The government agrees that an order of supervision does not confer status or benefits under the federal immigration laws. The government argues, however, that the language of § 1546(a) ’s "other document" clause should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, rather than using technical definitions from the federal immigration laws. And, according to the government, an order of supervision falls within § 1546(a) ’s "other document" clause because an order of supervision permits an unlawful alien to stay in the United States with the government's conditional permission pending his removal at some indeterminate point in the future.

A. Section 1546(a)

In 1986, Congress amended § 1546 after the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Campos-Serrano , 404 U.S. 293, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971), narrowly construed the earlier pre-1986 version of the statute, which referred only to "visas[s], permit[s], or other documents[s] required for entry into the United States." In Campos-Serrano , the Supreme Court concluded that a counterfeit alien registration card did not fall within the statute's scope because while an alien registration card could be used to reenter the United States, its primary purpose was to "effectuate the registration requirement for all resident aliens," and not to facilitate entry into the United States. Id. at 296, 300, 92 S.Ct. 471. As a result, in 1986, Congress abrogated Campos-Serrano and amended § 1546(a) by expanding the statute's scope to include other documents in addition to the ones already listed. Specifically, Congress added "alien registration receipt card" and "border crossing card" to the list of specifically named documents. See Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub.L.No. 99-6 -3, § 103(a)(2)-(3), 100 Stat. 3359 (1986); See also , Ryan-Webster , 353 F.3d at 362–63 (explaining Congress's amendment to § 1546(a) ). Congress further amended the "other document" clause. First, it replaced the phrase, "other document required for entry into the United States," with the phrase, "other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into" into the United States. (emphasis added) Second, Congress amended the statute by adding to the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • United States v. Pate
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 10, 2022
    ...language "be given its plain and ordinary meaning unless the statutory text or context requires otherwise." United States v. Chinchilla , 987 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2021). As such, we begin with the applicable statutory text. Section 1521, the primary statute under review, provides:Whoe......
  • Ga. Ass'n of Latino Elected Officials, Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration & Elections
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 8, 2022
    ...the ways to figure out that meaning is by looking at dictionaries in existence around the time of enactment.’ " United States v. Chinchilla , 987 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols. , 852 F.3d 1018, 1026 (11th Cir. 2016) ). Moreover, "[i]n ascertaining ......
  • State v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • February 23, 2021
    ...an alien in its custody within ninety days from the issuance of a final removal order." (emphasis added)); United States v. Chinchilla , 987 F.3d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir. 2021) ("Generally, an alien must be physically removed from the United States within ninety days of a final removal order."......
  • Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 30, 2022
    ...the ordinary meaning of a word "is by looking at dictionaries in existence around the time of enactment." United States v. Chinchilla, 987 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 852 F.3d 1018, 1026 (11th Cir. 2016)). Reputable dictionary definitions of "s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Law
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 73-4, June 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1) (2012).55. 5 F.4th 1295 (11th Cir. 2021).56. Id. at 1304, 1306, 1309.57. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (2002).58. Id.59. 987 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2021).60. 987 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2021).61. Chinchilla, 987 F.3d at 1305, 1309; Maradiaga, 987 F.3d at 1319. 62. Chinchilla, 987 F.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT