Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02227/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Valentin Laguna-Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl L.t'.JD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Co~~ Ap,cab Tenth C1rcu1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APRZ 11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JESUS VALENTIN LAGUNA-FLORES, 

aka Jesus Flores-Vaguera; aka 

Adrian Sisneros; aka Valentine 

Flores, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

.) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-2227 

) (D.C. No. CR 91-65 JC) 

) (D.N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant Jesus Valentin Laguna-Flores appeals his 

conviction under 18 u.s.c. S 1546 of knowingly subscribing as true 

a false statement with respect to a material fact in an 

application for permanent residence submitted to the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS). On appeal, defendant argues the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-2227 Document: 010110243017 Date Filed: 04/21/1992 Page: 1
government failed to prove that he knowingly signed a false 

application. Because the evidence, when viewed in the light most 

favorable to the government, is sufficient proof of guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt, we disagree with defendant's contention and 

affirm. See United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1531 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1128 (1986). 

In November 1989, the INS received an application from 

defendant requesting that his temporary residence status be made 

permanent. One of the questions in the application asked whether 

defendant had been arrested in the interim between the grant of 

temporary status and his application for permanent residency. 

Defendant, who undeniably had been arrested during this time, 

answered "no" to this question and signed the application, 

certifying to its contents. 

We acknowledge that the government bears the burden of proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements of a crime, In re 

Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 

197, 215 (1977) (construing Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 

(1975)), and that to obtain a conviction under 18 u.s.c. § 1546 

the government must prove that defendant "(l) knowingly, (2) 

(made] a false statement, (3) under oath, (4) in a document 

required by the immigration laws." United States v. Al-Kurna, 808 

F.2d 1072, 1074 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). 

We hold that the government proved all elements of the crime 

charged, including defendant's knowledge, beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2227 Document: 010110243017 Date Filed: 04/21/1992 Page: 2
At trial, defendant's own testimony established that he knew 

the application required disclosure of arrests, V R. 69-70, that 

he had been arrested but indicated to the contrary on the 

application, id. at 70, 77-78, and that he signed the document 

certifying to its accuracy. Id. at 77. This evidence was 

sufficient to sustain the government's burden of proving that 

defendant knowingly subscribed as true a false statement with 

respect to a material fact in an application required by the 

immigration laws. Thus, the government proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt "every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which 

[defendant was] charged." In re Winship, 397 U. S. at 364 . 

Defendant's argument on appeal is based on his testimony that 

he did not read English and that a Catholic Relief Services worker 

helped him complete his application. He testified that when the 

Relief Services worker read him the question regarding prior 

arrests he informed the worker of his arrests for drunkenness, 

fighting, and filing a false report but was told that "only things 

like robbery or a felony" needed to be reported. V R. 78. 

Because of this misinformation, defendant argues that he could not 

have "knowingly" signed and submitted a document containing a 

false statement because he thought the information he was 

providing was true. 

Defendant contends that the government should have called the 

Catholic Relief Services worker as a witness and that, without 

this witness to rebut his testimony, the government's proof of his 

knowledge fails. We disagree. The findings of the district court 

make no mention of defendant's testimony regarding the role of the 

3 

----------------------------- 

Appellate Case: 91-2227 Document: 010110243017 Date Filed: 04/21/1992 Page: 3
Relief Services 1 worker. It is implicit, therefore, that the 

court did not believe defendant on this issue and found, instead, 

that defendant did knowingly submit a false application. It was 

the province of the trier of fact to make the credibility 

determination in this instance, and all such credibility choices 

on appeal must be made in support of the verdict of the trier of 

fact. United States v. Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 1354 (10th Cir. 

1982). In summary, we find the evidence of defendant's knowledge 

and the other elements of the crime charged, when viewed in the 

light most favorable to the government, sufficient proof of guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hooks, 780 F.2d at 1531. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 The court's entire discussion is as follows: "As to Count 

II, there's no doubt about it, that he had been arrested, been 

arrested three times. He signed the document, falsely signed the 

document, and therefore, I find him guilty under Count II." V R. 

79-80. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-2227 Document: 010110243017 Date Filed: 04/21/1992 Page: 4