United States v. Garcia , 288 F. App'x 888 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4802
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MAGANA GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00017-FDW)
Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Steven Slawinski, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Magana Garcia appeals his jury conviction and
sixty-three month sentence for attempting to reenter the United
States after being deported for committing an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000). Garcia claims the district
court erred when it denied his requests to instruct the jury that
attempted illegal reentry is a specific intent crime, and regarding
the mistake of fact and entrapment-by-estoppel defenses. Garcia
also asserts that the district court violated his constitutional
rights when it enhanced his base offense level by sixteen pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
(2006). Finding no error, we affirm.
To obtain a conviction under § 1326, the Government only
had to establish that: (i) Garcia was an alien who was previously
arrested and deported; (ii) he reentered or attempted to reenter
the United States voluntarily; and (iii) he failed to secure the
express permission of the Attorney General to return. See United
States v. Espinoza-Leon, 873 F.2d 743, 746 (4th Cir. 1989); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000) (making it unlawful for a deported
alien to enter, attempt to enter, or at any time be found in the
United States without prior approval from the Attorney General).
In refusing to instruct the jury regarding Garcia’s specific intent
or lack thereof, the district court relied on this court’s holding
in Espinoza-Leon, where we explicitly held that “only general
- 2 -
intent must be proven by the government in order to secure a
conviction under § 1326.” 873 F.2d at 746. Accordingly, we find
that Garcia was not entitled to specific intent or mistake of fact
jury instructions.
Additionally, to establish the entrapment-by-estoppel
defense, Garcia had to establish that: (i) the Government
affirmatively assured him that his reentry into the United States
was lawful; (ii) he engaged in conduct in reasonable reliance on
the Government’s assurances; and (iii) a criminal prosecution based
on his reentry ensued. See United States v. Aquino-Chacon, 109
F.3d 936, 938-39 (4th Cir. 1997). To be able to assert the
defense, however, a defendant has to show more than “vague or even
contradictory” statements by the government; “he must demonstrate
that there was ‘active misleading’ in the sense that the government
actually told him that the proscribed conduct was permissible.”
Id. at 939 (internal citation omitted). Because we find that
Garcia’s evidence failed to establish he was entitled to assert the
entrapment-by-estoppel defense, we conclude that he was not
entitled to have the jury instructed regarding the defense.
Although Garcia also asserts that the district court
violated his constitutional rights when it enhanced his Guidelines
range pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on prior convictions
not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, Garcia also
acknowledges that this argument fails under controlling circuit
- 3 -
precedent. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 285-87
(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that where facts are inherent in the
convictions themselves, “[n]o finding of fact by a jury is
necessary”); see also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54
(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that prior convictions used as the basis
for an armed career criminal sentence need not be charged in
indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Garcia does not
otherwise argue that his sentence is unreasonable.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -