Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-01388/USCOURTS-ca3-24-01388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brent Anthony Benito
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 24-1388

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRENT ANTHONY BENITO,

Appellant

 ________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 4-22-cr-00243-001)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

December 5, 2024

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and McKEE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 5, 2024)

______________

OPINION*

______________

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 24-1388 Document: 43 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
2

Brent Anthony Benito, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, was convicted of 

hampering removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C). On appeal, he challenges the 

District Court’s rejection of his proposed good faith jury instruction. We will affirm.1

We review a district court’s denial of a request for a good faith jury instruction for 

abuse of discretion.2 At trial, the District Court instructed the jury that the parties had 

stipulated to three of the four necessary elements to prove that Benito hindered his 

removal from the United States. Thus, the only issue for the jury to decide was whether 

Benito “knowingly and intentionally connived, conspired, or took any other action 

designed to prevent and hamper and with the purpose of preventing and hampering his 

departure from the United States.”3 The District Court further instructed the jury on the 

meaning of “knowingly” and “intentionally.”4

Benito does not challenge the legal correctness of these instructions. Instead, he 

contends that the District Court erred by failing to provide a jury instruction on the good 

faith defense. However, we have repeatedly held “that a district court does not abuse its 

discretion in denying a good faith instruction where the instructions given already contain 

a specific statement of the government’s burden to prove the elements of a ‘knowledge’

crime.”

5 When the “instructions, taken as a whole, adequately define[] the elements of the 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2 United States v. Titus, 78 F.4th 595, 602 (3d Cir. 2023).

3 App. 138.

4 App. 138.

5 United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d 634, 651 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United States v. 

Gross, 961 F.2d 1097, 1102–03 (3d Cir. 1992); Titus, 78 F.4th at 602. Benito contends 

that these cases are distinguishable because they “involved charges that did not contain a 

statutory good faith defense (while § 1253(a)(2) does).” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). 

Case: 24-1388 Document: 43 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
3

crime, including the intent requirement, . . . a good faith instruction [is] unnecessary and 

redundant.”6 Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to provide a 

good faith instruction because it sufficiently defined the elements of the crime, including 

the government’s burden to prove that Benito acted with the requisite scienter. We will 

affirm.

Section 1253(a)(2), however, is not a good faith defense. Rather, it “relieves an 

[undocumented immigrant] from liability for taking ‘any proper steps for the purpose of 

securing cancellation of or exemption from such order of removal’ [and] is intended to 

prevent the [undocumented immigrant] from being prosecuted on the basis of his or her 

attempts to contest removal.” United States v. Ashraf, 628 F.3d 813, 824 (6th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(2)). 

6 Leahy, 445 F.3d at 651.

Case: 24-1388 Document: 43 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2024