United States v. Rodriguez-Ruiz ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50095 Document: 00516062136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 20, 2021
No. 21-50095
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Santos Rodriguez-Ruiz,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-368-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Santos Rodriguez-Ruiz appeals his jury trial
conviction for illegal reentry following a prior removal. He contends that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Our review is de novo
because Rodriguez-Ruiz preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50095 Document: 00516062136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2021
No. 21-50095
evidence. United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2013). We must
determine “whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (emphasis in
original) (quoting United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d 873, 880 (5th Cir. 2013)).
Rodriguez-Ruiz challenges whether the Government proved that: (1)
he was an alien at the time of his illegal reentry and (2) he did not obtain the
Attorney General’s consent to reenter the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a); United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 2010).
The Government presented testimony and documentary evidence that
Rodriguez-Ruiz admitted that he was a Mexican citizen who was born in
Mexico to Mexican parents, and that he had neither sought nor obtained
permission to reenter the United States. A rational trier of fact could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez-Ruiz was an alien at the time
of his reentry and that he did not obtain the Attorney General’s consent to
reenter the United States. See Brown, 727 F.3d at 335.
Rodriguez-Ruiz also challenges the district court’s denial of his
collateral attack on his prior removal order. He must demonstrate, among
other factors, that “the deportation proceedings at which the order was
issued improperly deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial review.” 8
U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2). See also United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct.
1615, 1619-21 (2021) (holding alien must demonstrate all three elements of
§1326(d)). Rodriguez-Ruiz’s brief lacks any meaningful challenge to the
district court’s determination that he failed to meet this prerequisite. He has
therefore abandoned this issue. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251,
254-55 (5th Cir. 2010).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2