Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40589/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40589-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Melo-Cedano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40589

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

versus 

JOEL MELO-CEDANO, Also Known as Joel Melo-Serrano, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:15-CR-741-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Melo-Cedano appeals his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326, claiming that “[o]rganic principles of American law (the law of nations) prohibits

[sic] Congressional criminalization of America’s borders.” He maintains 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

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40589 Document: 00513800728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 16-40589

2 

“[c]riminalizing borders is anathema to the law of nations (an organic part of 

America’s common law).” He posits that § 1326 is unconstitutional as applied 

to him because he was under the impression that he could apply for adjustment 

of status only from within the United States. The government has moved for 

summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellate brief or, alternatively, for an 

extension of time to file its brief. Melo-Cedano has moved to file an untimely 

response to the motion for summary affirmance. 

Because Melo-Cedano did not present the foregoing issues to the district 

court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Howard, 

766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1015 (2015). To establish plain error, Melo-Cedano must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Melo-Cedano has not shown any clear or obvious error with respect to 

the constitutionality of § 1326. See United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 

135-36 (2010); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. In addition, “the crime of illegal reentry is not a specific intent crime, and a mistake of law is thus not a defense.” 

United States v. Flores-Martinez, 677 F.3d 699, 712 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Melo-Cedano’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326 is 

insufficient to show error, plain or otherwise. See id.; Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary. Melo-Cedano’s motion to file an untimely response is GRANTED. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40589 Document: 00513800728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016