February 12, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Silva, 22-30821, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Wilson, J. (Smith, Graves, Wilson), Graves, J., dissenting; criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, rejecting argument that the government had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was unlawfully in the United States when he possessed the firearm.
    • The defendant argued that he genuinely believed that he was in the United States legally because he held an I-94 form that he believed was a permit to be in the United States pending an adjudication of his removal for entering the United States illegally. Reviewing the record, the Court found, “[T]here was a plethora of evidence to rebut Contreras Silva’s assertion that he believed he was in the United States lawfully. Reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Government as the prevailing party, we agree that a reasonable jury could (and did) determine that Contreras Silva knew he was unlawfully in the United States. * * * In May 2018, DHS detained him, informed him that DHS considered him unlawfully present, and placed him in removal proceedings. It was on the day of his arrest that he received the I-94 Form ‘permit,’ on which he stakes much of his case—but he remained in custody for three months after receiving it, belying the notion that the form meant he was in the country lawfully. Similarly, paperwork for his bond informed him that the Government had charged him with being ‘unlawfully in the United States.’ And as late as 2020, Contreras Silva himself completed an application for ‘Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents,’ on which he stated that he had not been inspected at the border or admitted into the United States. Finally, as the Government points out, there is the ‘common-sense inference of knowledge stemming from Contreras Silva’s own admission that he knew his applications for a change in immigration status were still pending at the time he possessed the firearm.’ Taken together, a jury could rely on this evidence to find that Contreras Silva had the requisite knowledge of his unlawful status at the time he possessed the firearm at issue.”
    • Judge Graves dissented. Applying the standard for knowledge of immigration status from Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), he would hold that “[n]either the government nor the majority here point to any evidence illustrative of a vicious or evil will. While Contreras knew that the government was alleging that he was here illegally, he also knew that he had been granted bond and allowed to stay in the country pending the resolution of his immigration matters. Additionally, he was in possession of a Form I-94 ‘permit,’ which even the deportation officer from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified ‘is what you receive when you legally enter the United States. It gives you the reason you are admitted, and it also gives you the length of time you’re allowed to stay.’ The government dismisses this as ‘just an inartful way of explaining that all foreign nationals found in the United States, legal or not, are documented via I-94 once located.’ The government also states that Contreras ‘does not dispute that the I-94 had no actual effect on his immigration status (only that he thought it did)….’ The government’s acknowledgement that Contreras ‘thought it did,’ undercuts the government’s case. If Contreras thought it did have an effect, then he could not have also known that it did not have an effect.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Badenock, 21-20468, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Willett, Douglas), criminal, speedy trial
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, holding that pre-indictment delay did not implicate the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial guarantees, but only Fifth Amendment protections that were not argued by the defendant.
  • U.S. v. Gonzales, 22-51077, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, but remanding 151-month sentence for “the district court to clarify its intent with regards to Gonzales’s sentence.”
  • U.S. v. Rocco, 23-10138, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Willett, Duncan), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming defendant’s guilty plea conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Dickson, 23-10621, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rafiq, 23-10690, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Oldham), criminal, forfeiture
    • Affirming denial of motion for writ of audita querela with regard to forfeiture judgment.
  • Brown v. City of Central, 23-30146, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson), § 1983, timeliness
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims arising from impoundment of motorcycle for driving without a license plate as barred by Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period.
  • Bell v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 23-50112, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Ho), Class Action Fairness Act
    • Affirming dismissal of class action brought under CAFA for lack of jurisdiction on basis that plaintiffs had failed to show that they would meet the $5 million threshold amount in controversy.