United States v. Adrian Zitlalpopoca-Hernandez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50370
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04304-BEN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ADRIAN ZITLALPOPOCA-
HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,
District Judge.**
Adrian Zitlalpopoca-Hernandez (“Zitlalpopoca”), a Mexican citizen, was
charged and convicted of ten crimes relating to the sex trafficking of two Mexican
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Northern Iowa, sitting by designation.
women, Anabel and Florencia: sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (Counts 1 and 2); persuasion or coercion to travel
in foreign commerce for prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (Counts 3
and 4); harboring aliens for purposes of prostitution in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1328(Counts 5 and 6); bringing illegal aliens into the United States for financial gain in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) (Counts 7 and 8); and harboring illegal
aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Counts 9 and 10).
Zitlalpopoca appeals his convictions under § 1591 relating to Anabel and
Florencia (Counts 1 and 2), and his conviction under § 2422 relating to Florencia
(Count 4). He also appeals the district court’s restitution award under § 1591. As
well as the district court’s application of a vulnerable victim enhancement in
determining Zitlalpopoca’s concurrent sentences of 292 months under Counts 1
and 2 for violating § 1591.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties are familiar with
the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain
our decision. We reverse Zitlalpopoca’s convictions under Counts 1, 2, and 4 (the
only counts on appeal). We remand to the district court for resentencing of the
remaining counts of convictions (Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10).
2
Zitlalpopoca correctly argues that there is insufficient evidence to support
his convictions under Counts 1, 2, and 4. We review de novo the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the convictions. United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974
(9th Cir. 2008). Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, “viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
With respect to Counts 1 and 2, § 1591(a)(1) imposes punishment on, inter
alia, anyone who “knowingly in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce . . .
recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person . .
. knowing that force, fraud, or coercion . . . will be used to cause the person to
engage in a commercial sex act.” 18 U.S.C. §1591 (a) (2006) (amended Dec.
2008).
Count 1 charged Zitlalpopoca with sex trafficking in interstate commerce by
force, fraud, or coercion from April 1, 2008 to November 20, 2008 (Anabel).
Count 2 charged Zitlalpopoca with sex trafficking in interstate commerce by force,
fraud, or coercion from July 1, 2008 to November 20, 2008 (Florencia). These
dates in the indictment encompassed Zitlalpopoca’s conduct in the United States
from Anabel’s and Florencia’s respective arrivals through his arrest.
3
The government argues that the requisite knowledge under § 1591 may
apply to acts of force, fraud, or coercion that took place before the time period
alleged in the indictment. The government is mistaken.
We have interpreted the knowledge required under § 1591 to mean that “the
defendant know[s] in the sense of being aware of an established modus operandi
that will in the future cause a person to engage in prostitution.” United States v.
Todd, 627 F.3d 329, 334 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Specifically, “if things
go as [the defendant] has planned, force, fraud or coercion will be employed to
cause his victim to engage in a commercial sex transaction.” Id. at 334. The
knowledge requirement encompasses a finding that the offense was subsequently
“effected by force, fraud, or coercion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1); Todd, 627 F.3d at
334-35.
There was insufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable
doubt that during the time periods alleged in the indictment, Zitlalpopoca
knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided or obtained Anabel
and Florencia, knowing that force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause
Anabel and Florencia to engage in prostitution. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). The
government conceded as much in its brief by arguing that sufficient evidence to
support Counts 1 and 2 may be found by looking at Zitlalpopoca’s pre-indictment
4
conduct in Mexico, rather than Zitlalpopoca’s conduct in the United States. In
Mexico, Zitlalpopoca physically assaulted the women on numerous occasions.
There was no evidence Zitlalpopoca assaulted the women in the United States.
Furthermore, the government conceded at oral argument that there was no evidence
that Zitlalpopoca coerced Florencia in the United States to support Count 2.
We therefore reverse Zitlalpopoca’s convictions for Counts 1 and 2 under §
1591. Because we reverse Zitlalpopoca’s convictions under § 1591, Zitlalpopoca’s
challenge to the restitution award under § 1591 is moot.
The evidence was also insufficient to support Zitlalpopoca’s conviction
under Count 4. Under 18 U.S.C § 2422(a) (2006), a defendant is guilty if he
“knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in
interstate or foreign commerce . . . to engage in prostitution.” The evidence at trial
demonstrated that it was Florencia who persuaded Zitlalpopoca to bring her to the
United States, not the other way around. Contra United States v. Rashkovski, 301
F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002) (sufficient evidence supported § 2422(a)
conviction where defendant traveled to Russia, held recruiting meetings to promote
prostitution in the United States, and arranged and paid for Russian women to
travel to the United States to work as prostitutes). Thus, we reverse Count 4.
5
Where, as here, “a defendant is sentenced on multiple counts and one of
them is later vacated on appeal, the sentencing package comes ‘unbundled.’”
United States v. Ruiz-Alvarez, 211 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2000). “The district
court then has the authority ‘to put together a new [sentencing] package’” for the
remaining convictions. Id. (citation omitted). Given that we have reversed Counts
1, 2, and 4, we remand Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for resentencing.
We do not reach Zitlalpopoca’s argument that the district court erred by
applying a vulnerable victim enhancement at sentencing because the evidence
failed to show that Zitlalpopoca was more blameworthy than other § 1591
offenders. Because we have reversed the § 1591 convictions and have remanded
for resentencing, Zitlalpopoca’s challenge to his sentence is moot.
We REVERSE Zitlalpopoca’s convictions under Counts 1, 2, and 4 of his
indictment and REMAND Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for resentencing
accordingly.
6