United States v. Innocent Nzamubereka

Case: 16-30191 Document: 00513727027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-30191 FILED
Summary Calendar October 20, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
INNOCENT SAFARI NZAMUBEREKA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:13-CR-170-1
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Innocent Safari Nzamubereka, a citizen of Rwanda, appeals his jury
convictions for two counts of conniving, conspiring, or taking any other action
designed to prevent or hamper, or with the purpose of preventing or
hampering, his departure from the United States pursuant to an outstanding
final order of removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C). He preserved his
claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, which we review de novo.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-30191 Document: 00513727027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 16-30191
United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir. 2002). “[W]e view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and will affirm ‘if a
rational trier of fact could have found that the government proved all essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Lankford,
196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Castro, 15 F.3d 417,
419 (5th Cir. 1994)).
Nzamubereka does not dispute that his asylum had been revoked
following his conviction for aggravated assault and that he was subject to a
valid final order of removal to Rwanda. He challenges only the sufficiency of
the evidence with respect to his mens rea. We have previously indicated that
a § 1253(a)(1)(C) violation requires proof that a defendant “knowingly”
prevented or hampered his removal. United States v. Diallo, 569 F. App’x 221,
221-22 (5th Cir. 2014). The indictment in this case charged that Nzamubereka
acted knowingly and willfully, and the district court defined both terms for the
jury. We need not resolve whether the statute requires “willful” as well as
“knowing” action because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict, was sufficient to support a finding of both.
Deportation officers testified that Nzamubereka was repeatedly warned
that failure to cooperate with his removal could result in criminal prosecution.
Despite these warnings, on the two occasions charged in the indictment,
Nzamubereka refused to sign a transit visa application necessary to remove
him to Rwanda via South Africa. Nzamubereka contends that the jury could
not have found that he acted knowingly or willfully because he reasonably (but
erroneously) believed that he still had asylum. Government deportation
officers testified that they had explained to Nzamubereka why his belief was
incorrect and unsupported; the jury was entitled to credit that testimony and
to reject Nzamubereka’s proffered defense. Moreover, unlike the immigration
2
Case: 16-30191 Document: 00513727027 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 16-30191
officials’ representations in Heikkinen v. United States, 355 U.S. 273, 279-80
(1958), the opaque Department of Homeland Security form regarding his
asylum status, which predated the final order of removal, does not negate a
finding of knowing and willful action as a matter of law.
In light of the foregoing, the jury’s findings were a reasonable
construction of the evidence. Lankford, 196 F.3d at 575. We will not disturb
those findings on appeal. Id.
AFFIRMED.
3