United States v. Adolfo Sandoval-Galvez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10523
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00584-SRB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADOLFO SANDOVAL-GALVEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Adlofo Sandoval-Galvez (“Sandoval-Galvez”) appeals his conviction for a
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it admitted into evidence certified copies of immigration records
documenting his eight prior illegal entries and related removals. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Lynch, 367 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004). If evidence is
improperly admitted, reversal is appropriate only if the error was not harmless.
United States v. Derington, 229 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2000). “If, on the record
as a whole, consideration by the jury of the evidence for that purpose would not
have likely changed its decision, then the error was harmless.” Id.Sandoval-Galvez contends that the district court abused its discretion under
Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 when it allowed the government to
introduce evidence of eight prior illegal entries and related removals to prove that
Sandoval-Galvez knowingly and voluntarily entered the United States on the date
in question.
We need not resolve this question, because even assuming that the district
court abused its discretion, the admission of evidence documenting his eight prior
entries and removals was harmless error. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683,
688 (9th Cir. 2002). The government provided a significant amount of other
evidence to show that Sandoval-Galvez knowingly and voluntarily crossed into the
United States. Sandoval-Galvez admitted to Border Patrol agents that he was
headed to Los Angeles and he knew that it was unlawful to cross into the United
States. Border Patrol agents tracked a single set of footprints from the Colorado
2
River to Sandoval-Galvez’s location and confirmed that his shoes matched the
tracks. Given this additional evidence, any error in admitting Sandoval-Galvez’s
eight prior entries and removals was harmless.
AFFIRMED.
3