USA v. Salazar Robles, SALAZAR-ROBLE

Decision Date21 March 2000
Docket NumberD,SALAZAR-ROBLE,No. 99-10194,99-10194
Citation207 F.3d 648
Parties(9th Cir. 2000) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADANefendant-Appellant
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

John P. Balazs, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, California, for the defendant-appellant.

Robin R. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Milton L. Schwartz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-98-00221-MLS

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, John T. Noonan, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

Adan Salazar-Robles appeals his conviction of being a deported alien found in the United States without the consent of the Attorney General in violation of 8 U.S.C.S 1326. His appeal presents a single issue: does venue for the prosecution of this offense lie where the alien is involuntarily found? Holding that Salazar-Robles was properly prosecuted in the Eastern District of California where an agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS) found him in state prison, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Salazar-Robles was deported from the United States on December 8, 1993; on September 6, 1995; on April 23, 1996; on June 21, 1997; and on December 12, 1997. On February 5, 1998, he was arrested by state authorities in Orange County, California for state parole violations. He was convicted and incarcerated and transported by state authorities from Orange County in the Central District of California to Folsom State Prison in the Eastern District.

On May 7, 1998, he was encountered by an INS agent at Folsom and interviewed. He admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico illegally in the United States. On September 11, 1998, he was indicted for two counts of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. S 1325(a)(1) and for being a deported alien found in the United States in the Eastern District of California in violation of S 1326.

Before trial, Salazar-Robles submitted a proposed jury instruction that to find him guilty of the S 1326 violation the jury must find that his presence in the Eastern District was "voluntary." The court rejected the instruction. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the government's case, SalazarRobles moved for acquittal. The motion was denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. He again moved for acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence and on the ground of improper venue. The motion was denied, and he was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a special assessment of $100.

Salazar-Robles appeals his conviction of violation of S 1326.

ANALYSIS

Salazar-Robles's appeal may be read in two ways: either as a contention that venue was improper because he did not voluntarily commit the crime in the Eastern District, or that the government did not prove an element of the crime because "being found," had to be the result of a voluntary act. Either way, Salazar-Robles loses. Venue was proper. A violation of S 1326 has only two elements and both elements of the crime -illegal return and being found -were established.

The argument is earnestly advanced that to be guilty of a crime you must perform a voluntary act and that, when the crime consists in part in being found somewhere, you must have voluntarily put yourself in the forbidden place. As Salazar-Robles did not voluntarily put himself in Folsom State Prison, he did not voluntarily commit the act which completes the crime of being a deported alien found in the United States. Q.E.D.

The argument is neat and not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • United States v. Orona-Ibarra
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 3 Agosto 2016
    ...an additional requirement of an arrest. See United States v. Dixon , 327 F.3d 257, 259 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Salazar – Robles , 207 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir. 2000) ). Once the alien is arrested for an immigration offense, all doubt is removed over the question whether he has......
  • United States v. Macias
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 14 Enero 2014
    ...of mens rea. Even though being “found in” a place might be viewed as a “passive act” by the defendant, see United States v. Salazar–Robles, 207 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.2000), criminal culpability demands proof that the defendant was voluntarily in the United States either at the time he was ......
  • U.S. v. Salazar-Gonzalez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Abril 2006
    ...doubt by the prosecution." United States v. Quintana-Torres, 235 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Salazar-Robles, 207 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding a "found in" conviction and finding that "[t]he voluntary element consisted in Salazar Robles's However, a ......
  • U.S. v. Guzman-Ocampo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 21 Diciembre 2000
    ...United States; and (4) that he did not have the consent of the Attorney General to reapply for admission. 5. See United States v. Salazar-Robles, 207 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir.) (opining that a violation of § 1326 requires the general intent to reenter), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 145 (2000); Un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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