United States v. Estrada-Rodriguez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40055 Document: 00516636673 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40055
FILED
February 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pedro Estrada-Rodriguez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:20-CR-1863-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Pedro Estrada-Rodriguez appeals his conviction following a jury trial
for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district
court plainly erred by not instructing the jury that his specific intent to remain
in the United States when reentering was an element of the offense and that
the evidence was insufficient to support such specific intent.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40055 Document: 00516636673 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
No. 22-40055
At trial, Estrada-Rodriguez did not object to the district court’s jury
instructions or renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all
evidence; accordingly, we review both of his challenges for plain error. See
United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903, 909 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Smith, 878 F.3d 498, 502-03 (5th Cir. 2017). His contentions are foreclosed
by our decisions holding that illegal reentry is not a specific intent crime and
is instead a general intent crime requiring the Government to prove merely
that the defendant voluntarily reentered the country. See United States v.
Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d 65, 68-69 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court’s
jury instructions were therefore not erroneous, and there was ample evidence
of guilt on the essential elements that the Government was required to prove.
See Smith, 878 F.3d at 503; United States v. Esparza, 678 F.3d 389, 392 (5th
Cir. 2012); Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d at 237-39.
AFFIRMED.
2