-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4332 ROBERTO MORENO-BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-455-AW) Submitted: November 23, 1999 Decided: December 28, 1999 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynn A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Roberto A. Moreno-Bonilla appeals his jury conviction for reentry into the United States by a deported alien without the express consent of the Attorney General, in violation of
8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(West 1999). He asserts that the trial court improperly excluded relevant evidence, improperly limited cross-examination of a Government witness, and improperly indicated an unwillingness to give a jury instruction. Finding no error, we affirm. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling that the evidence presented at trial and the defense's proffered evidence did not meet the requirements of the entrapment-by-estoppel defense. See United States v. Wells,
163 F.3d 889, 895 (4th Cir. 1998). "A criminal defendant may assert an entrapment-by-estoppel defense when the government affirmatively assures him that certain conduct is lawful, the defendant thereafter engages in the conduct in reasonable reliance on those assurances, and a criminal prosecution based upon the con- duct ensues." United States v. Aquino-Chacon ,
109 F.3d 936, 938-39 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
66 U.S.L.W. 3296(U.S. Oct. 20, 1997) (No. 96-9470). Moreno-Bonilla failed to present evi- dence that a government official assured him that reentry of the United States without the express permission of the Attorney General was legal. Nor did the district court preclude him from introducing such evidence. Rather, the court correctly concluded that the defen- dant's proffer, even if credited, would not be legally sufficient to establish the entrapment-by-estoppel defense. Accordingly, the dis- trict court did not exclude evidence relevant to the defense on which Moreno-Bonilla sought to rely. We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from posing a hypothetical question to the Government's witness from the Immigration and Naturalization 2 Service. The question contained facts which were not in evidence, and the district court was free to limit cross-examination that could poten- tially confuse the jury. See United States v. Crockett,
813 F.2d 1310(4th Cir. 1987). Finally, because the defense presented insufficient evidence to assert the entrapment-by-estoppel defense, there was no evidentiary basis for an instruction on it. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in indicating an unwillingness to instruct the jury on that affirmative defense based upon the evidence that had been presented in the trial. See United States v. Stotts,
113 F.3d 493(4th Cir. 1997). The court indicated its ruling could change if, in pre- sentation of the defense's case, evidence was presented to support the instruction. Moreno-Bonilla failed to present supporting evidence, however. For the foregoing reasons, we therefore affirm the conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 99-4332
Filed Date: 12/28/1999
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014