Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50486/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Bedolla-Talavera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50486

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE BEDOLLA-TALAVERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-1695

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Bedolla-Talavera appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the 

United States, which resulted in a below-guidelines sentence of 40 months in 

prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He argues that his rights 

under the Confrontation Clause were infringed by the admission of a 

Certificate of Nonexistence of Record (CNR) at trial and that the remaining 

evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. The Government argues that 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50486 Document: 00512940792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2015
No. 14-50486

there is no Confrontation Clause violation because Bedolla-Talavera had an 

opportunity to challenge the admission of the CNR pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Evidence 803(10)(B) and that the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to 

uphold the conviction even absent the CNR.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right “to be 

confronted with the witnesses against him.” Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015 

(1988). When, as is the case here, a Confrontation Clause claim was preserved 

in the district court, it is reviewed de novo but is nonetheless subject to 

harmless error review. United States v. Acosta, 475 F.3d 677, 680 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

We decline to resolve the Confrontation Clause issue because our review 

of the evidence adduced at trial convinces us that any error resulting from 

admission of the CNR was harmless. Trial evidence showed that BedollaTalavera was found lying on the ground, facedown, in the United States near 

the Rio Grande, and that his pants were wet below the knees. He admitted 

that he had no documentation, and he told the processing agent he was a 

Mexican citizen. His Mexican birth certificate and a prior removal order were 

admitted. This evidence sufficed to permit the jury to conclude that BedollaTalavera did not have permission to apply for admission to this country. 

Accordingly, admission of the CNR was harmless. See United States v. 

Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 587 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2010). This evidence also 

suffices to permit a reasonable jury to find beyond a doubt that BedollaTalavera was guilty of illegal reentry. See United States v. Girod, 646 F.3d 

304, 313 (5th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50486 Document: 00512940792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2015