Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04938/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04938-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Saldiva-Sandoval
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO SALDIVA-SANDOVAL, a/k/a Jose Edilberto

Hernandez, a/k/a Jose Edilberto Cabre

Hernandez, a/k/a Herman Lainez, a/k/a Jose

Cabrera, a/ka Jose Cabrera Hernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00306-WLO)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, TISDALE & CLIFTON, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United

States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4938 Doc: 80 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following two mistrials, Roberto Saldiva-Sandoval was

convicted at a third trial of illegal reentry by a previously

deported alien, 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000), and was sentenced to

fifty-four months in prison. He now appeals his conviction. We

affirm. 

I

At trial, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Lewis

Winer testified that an individual known as Jose Edilberto

Hernandez, who operated a small store in Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, applied for a beer license. In connection with that

application, state authorities conducted a routine investigation,

including a fingerprint analysis. As a result of the

investigation, state authorities alerted federal officials, and, on

August 5, 2005, Winer arrested the defendant for illegally

reentering the United States. Winer fingerprinted the defendant,

who insisted his name was Hernandez. A fingerprint expert

testified that the defendant’s prints matched those of an alien who

was deported in 1992 and again in 1993 and who was known then as

Roberto Saldiva-Sandoval or Jose Cabrera. The alien had not

applied for or received permission from the Attorney General or the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to reenter the

United States. 

Appeal: 06-4938 Doc: 80 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

II

The defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends

that the district court erred when it denied his Fed. R. Crim. P.

29 motion for judgment of acquittal at the first mistrial. There

is, however, no review of the sufficiency of evidence presented at

a prior trial that resulted in a mistrial. See Richardson v.

United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1984); United States v.

Julien, 318 F.3d 316, 321 (1st Cir. 2003); United States v.

Coleman, 862 F.2d 455, 460 (3rd Cir. 1989). 

The defendant also claims that the district court erred when

it refused to allow into evidence the fact that he possessed a

green card. We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 888 (4th Cir. 2001).

Where an objection was raised below, evidentiary rulings are

further subject to harmless error analysis. See United States v.

Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, there was no

abuse of discretion. We agree with the United States that defense

counsel opened the door to questioning about the contents of two

official files on the defendant. Such questioning was designed to

dispel any confusion that defense counsel’s questioning might have

left in the jurors’ minds when he inquired about the contents of

only one of the files. In any event, we believe that any error in

excluding the green card was harmless, given the essentially

Appeal: 06-4938 Doc: 80 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

undisputed testimony that the defendant’s fingerprints matched

those of an alien who was deported in 1992 and again in 1993.

III

We therefore affirm the conviction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-4938 Doc: 80 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 4 of 4