United States v. Varela-Garcia , 87 F. App'x 795 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-26-2004
USA v. Varela-Garcia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1728
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Varela-Garcia" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1071.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1071
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 03-1728, 03-1729, 03-1730, 03-1731
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
CRISTIAN VARELA-GARCIA,
Appellant No. 03-1728
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00198)
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
YAMILY ALOM IA-ORTIZ,
Appellant No. 03-1729
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00199)
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
GUSTAVO GIL-MUNOZ,
Appellant No. 03-1730
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00200)
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
YOHN BALBINO CHANTRI GUZMAN,
Appellant No. 03-1731
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00201)
___________
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore
___________
ARGUED December 9, 2003
BEFORE: NYGAARD, STAPLETON, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: January 26, 2004)
___________
Douglas J. Beevers, Esq. (Argued)
Office of Federal Public Defender
P.O. Box 1327, 51B Kongens Gade
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas USVI, 00804
Counsel for Appellants
Carl F. Morey, Esq. (Argued)
Sarah L. Weyler, Esq.
Office of United States Attorney
United States Courthouse
5500 Veterans Building, Suite 260
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas USVI, 00802-6924
Counsel for Appellee
___________
2
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants challenge their convictions for entering the United States
without inspection, arguing that their convictions were not supported by sufficient
evidence and that their confessions were not properly corroborated. Additionally,
appellants Yamily Alomia-Ortiz, Gustavo Gil-Munoz and Yohn Balbino Chantri Guzman
contend that their initial statements to INS officers about their nationality were taken in
violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We will affirm the District
Court’s judgment with respect to Cristian Varela-Garcia 1 , Alomia-Ortiz and Gil-Munoz.
We will vacate Chantri Guzman’s conviction for insufficient evidence.
We will assume that the readers of this opinion are familiar with its facts,
and we describe them only briefly. The appellants were convicted of entering the United
States without inspection based on their arrival in St. John during the early morning hours
of June 5, 2001. The government’s evidence in support of this conviction consisted
entirely of the testimony of two INS officers who interviewed the appellants after they
arrived. The officers testified that they investigated a reported illegal entry in St. John on
June 5th. When they returned to the INS office after their investigation, they found the
1. Mr. Varela-Garcia and the District Court spell his first name “Cristian.” The
government spells his name “Christian.” For the sake of simplicity, we will spell his
name “Cristian” throughout this opinion.
3
four appellants sitting in the waiting area. On the evening of June 5th, one of the INS
officers interviewed Varela-Garcia. The other three appellants were instructed to return
the next morning to be interviewed. They returned and were interviewed on June 6th.
The appellants’ interviews were nearly identical. Each was taken to an INS officer’s
personal office. They were not handcuffed and were not initially told that they were
under arrest or otherwise in custody. The INS officer first asked each appellant questions
regarding their nationality. Each appellant stated that he or she was a Colombian
national. The INS officers then gave each of the appellants a waiver of rights form,
which each signed. The appellants then described their trip from Colombia to St. John
that culminated in each taking a boat into St. John at the cost of between $1,000 and
$1,200. They each arrived in St. John around 1 a.m. and all of them, except Chantri
Guzman, admitted to entering St. John without going through inspection. The appellants
then voluntarily presented themselves at the INS office on June 5th. Appellants Chantri
Guzman and Gil-Munoz also requested political asylum during their interviews.
At trial before the Magistrate Judge, the appellants were convicted of
entering the United States without inspection in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). On
appeal to the District Court, that Court found that the admission of the appellants’
statements regarding their nationality that were given before the INS officer administered
Miranda warnings violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Court went on
to hold that the admission of these statements was harmless error because the appellants’
4
convictions were adequately supported even without these statements. This appeal
followed.
The District Court had jurisdiction over this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3402and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Specifically, we review the decision
as to whether the appellants were subject to custodial interrogation as a mixed question of
law and fact. United States v. Benton, 996 F.2d 642, 644 (3d Cir. 1993). The Magistrate
Judge’s findings with respect to the historic facts of the appellants’ interrogations are
reviewed for clear error while the application of the law to those facts is reviewed de
novo. Id. We review the sufficiency of the government’s evidence to determine if “any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 1998) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). If any such trier of fact could have so found, then
we will affirm. Id.The first issue each of the appellants, other than Varela-Garcia, raises is
whether the District Court erred by concluding that any Miranda violations resulted in
only harmless error. Under Miranda, before a person may be subjected to custodial
interrogation, certain prophylactic and now familiar warnings must be administered.
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Custodial interrogation generally exists when there has been
“a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ to the degree associated with a
formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (quoting Oregon v.
5
Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)). A court determines whether a defendant is in
custody by analyzing the objective circumstances presented to the defendant and
determining how a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would understand those
circumstances. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323-24 (1994). An investigating
officer’s belief as to whether the defendant is in custody is only relevant to this inquiry if
that belief is communicated to the suspect through either word or deed. Id.Here, the appellants appeared voluntarily at the INS office. They were
questioned by INS officers in the officers’ personal offices. They were not handcuffed or
otherwise restricted in their movement and they did not appear to be under any distress.
Before receiving a waiver of rights form that satisfied Miranda’s requirements, the
appellants were asked very basic questions about where they were from. The basic nature
of these questions necessarily implies that the appellants were only briefly questioned
before being given the waiver of rights form. Based on these objective circumstances, the
Magistrate Judge found that the appellants were not subjected to custodial interrogation
and, therefore, Miranda warnings were not required before the officers asked the
appellants about their nationality.
The District Court disagreed based entirely on the INS officers’ testimony
that the appellants were, in fact, in custody from the very beginning of each interview.
This testimony, however, discloses nothing more than the officers’ personal knowledge
that the appellants were not free to go. There was no testimony or other evidence that this
6
personal knowledge was communicated to the appellants. In fact, the Magistrate Judge
found that the objective circumstances surrounding the appellants’ interviews before they
were given the waiver of rights form did not amount to custodial interrogation. We agree
with this finding. One needs nothing more than common sense to understand that it is
natural, unoffensive and non-custodial for an INS officer to ask a person who shows up at
the INS office “who are you and where are you from” before the officer realizes that a
warning under Miranda is necessary. Because the officers’ subjective belief about the
appellants’ custodial status was not communicated to them, it does not alter this
conclusion. Accordingly, we hold that admitting the appellants’ statements regarding
their nationality was not error.
The appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the government’s evidence
and the degree of corroboration for their confessions. In order to succeed in a prosecution
for entry without inspection, the government must prove that a defendant is an alien who
“(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by
immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a
willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.”
8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). When the government’s proof of these elements includes statements
or confessions from the defendant, those statements must be corroborated to “establish
the trustworthiness of the statement.” Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 (1954).
7
A statement is properly corroborated so long as there is sufficient evidence to establish
that the statement, as a whole, is trustworthy. See id.; see also Gov’t of Virgin Islands v.
Harris, 938 F.2d 401, 409-10 (3d Cir. 1991). Each element of the statement need not be
independently corroborated. Harris, 938 F.2d at 410.
The evidence at trial (apart from the confessions themselves) uniformly and
substantially corroborates the confessions. Consistent with their stories of recent entry,
the appellants were present in the United States – indeed, in a border area of the United
States. The appellants appeared at an INS office, consistent with them having an
immigration-related issue. The appellants spoke only Spanish, which is consistent with
Colombian birth.2 Finally, the level of detail in each appellant’s account of the smuggling
operation tends to rule out the possibility that their stories were fabricated.
Finally, Varela-Garcia, Alomia-Ortiz and Gil-Munoz’s arguments that there
was insufficient evidence to support their convictions are also without merit. The
appellants admitted to being aliens and those admissions were supported by substantial
circumstantial evidence. This evidence included their voluntary appearance at the INS
office, their mode of entry into St. John and the fact that they spoke Spanish. These
2. Here, Opper’s focus on corroborative, rather than direct, evidence is critical:
Although speaking only Spanish is not directly probative of alienage in a region where
citizens and noncitizens alike may speak only Spanish, it is corroborative of the
appellants’ story of being from Colombia (where people are predominantly monolingual
Spanish speaker) as opposed to some other location in the region (where people are more
likely to speak English, French, or Patois).
8
pieces of evidence, taken together, are sufficient circumstantial proof to buttress the
appellants’ admissions that they are Colombian nationals. The INS officers also offered
unrebutted testimony that each of these appellants admitted to having entered St. John
without inspection. Based on this evidence, any reasonable trier of fact could have
determined that the appellants were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we will affirm
their convictions.3
As to appellant Chantri Guzman, he also admitted to being an alien and that
admission is properly supported by other evidence. However, a careful review of the
testimony and evidence discloses that the government offered no testimony or other
evidence to prove that he entered the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers. The INS officers testified that each of the other
appellants admitted entering without inspection, they did not so testify with respect to
Chantri Guzman. The only other evidence that could arguably support this element is the
testimony that Chantri Guzman appeared at the INS office with three other people who
entered without inspection on the day that INS officers were investigating such an entry
and that he entered St. John either with these other people or through a method identical
to them. This level of proof is insufficient for a trier of fact to conclude, beyond a
3. Varela-Garcia also argues that the government’s evidence was insufficient
because it did not prove that he was not entitled to derivative citizenship. He cites to no
case, and we could find none, to support his argument that such proof was required to
support a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
9
reasonable doubt, that Chantri Guzman entered without inspection. Chantri Guzman
could have arrived at St. John with the other appellants, but have gone through the
inspection point that the government’s own witnesses admitted was less that fifty yards
from where he arrived in St. John.
Accordingly, his conviction will be vacated.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment with
respect to appellants Varela-Garcia, Alomia-Ortiz and Gil-Munoz. We will reverse the
District Court with respect to appellant Chantri Guzman and vacate his conviction and
sentence.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge