Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02132/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfonso Quintana
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 2 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALFONSO QUINTANA, a/k/a 

Poncho Quintana, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Submitted on the briefs: 

89-2132 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

On Appeal From The 

United States District Court 

For The District Of New Mexico 

(D. C. No. 89-50 JC) 

Teresa E. Storch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and Mary L. Higgins, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, 

SETH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-2132 Document: 01019844454 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 1 
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); Tenth Cir, R, 34.1.9, The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument, 

The defendant Alfonso Quintana, an alien, pled guilty to a 

charge of violation of 26 u.s.c. § 586l(d) and§ 5871, for the 

possession of a sawed-off shotgun, Before being sentenced the 

defendant filed a Motion for Judicial Recommendation against 

Deportation apparently in reliance on 8 U,S,C, § 125l(b). The 

trial court during the sentencing proceedings denied the motion. 

In sentencing the court said: 

"I take the position in most of these cases 

that the Immigration Department is in a far 

better position, far better, to determine as 

to whether or not an individual should be 

deported than is this court, and I leave it up 

to them in practically every instance, So 

your motion for recommendation against 

deportation will be denied," 

The trial judge did not state whether he did, or whether he could, 

"consider" the motion on its merits, and did not further describe 

his reasons for its denial. 

The defendant on this appeal argues only as to the denial of 

the motion, and that the trial court should have "considered'' it 

on the merits. It is urged that in not doing so the court abused 

its discretion. 

We construe the trial court's statement, above quoted, to 

mean that it was not necessary under the applicable statute that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2132 Document: 01019844454 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 2 
the merits of the motion be considered. The crime to which the 

defendant pled guilty is one listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(14) as 

one which specifically provides for deportation as do others 

listed in§ 1251(a). 

Defendant, as mentioned, seeks a recommendation by the judge 

binding on the INS pursuant to§ 125l(b) that he not be deported. 

Defendant urges a construction of the statute on deportations to 

permit the trial judge to make a recommendation against 

deportation although his crime is one not mentioned in the statute 

as subject to such a recommendation. 

In 8 U.S.C. § 1251(4) it is provided that on order of the 

Attorney General an alien may be deported who is convicted of a 

crime involving moral turpitude (with certain conditions). The 

statute in another subsection,§ 1251(a)(14), provides for 

deportation if convicted, as was appellant, for possessing or 

carrying a sawed-off shotgun. 

The section sought to be applied by the defendant, and which 

provides for a binding recommendation by the judge against 

deportation, is§ 1251(b). This subsection states in part: 

ttThe provisions of subsection (a)(4) of this 

section respecting the deportation of an alien 

convicted of a crime or crimes [involving 

moral turpitude] shall not apply ... if the 

court sentencing such alien for such crime 

shall make, at the time of first imposing 

judgment or passing sentence ... a 

recommendation to the Attorney General that 

such alien not be deported .... The 

provisions of this subsection shall not apply 

in the case of any alien who is charged with 

being deportable ... under subsection 

(a)(ll) of this section [drug offenses]." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2132 Document: 01019844454 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 3 
Thus the subsection providing for a recommendation includes 

specifically only crimes involving moral turpitude, It also 

specifically excludes only drug offenses, The defendant does not 

seek to be included in the moral turpitude category, but urges 

that the section by its exclusion of drug offenses is intended to 

thereby include all other deportable offenses listed in§ 1251(a), 

Hence, the trial judge should have considered on the merits his 

motion for a recommendation in sentencing for the sawed-off 

shotgun offense. 

Section 1251(a)(4) is the only subsection listing deportable 

crimes which is referred to in§ 1251(b) authorizing the 

recommendation, The construction of the relationship between the 

two subsections must start with the proposition that the offenses 

in§ 1251(a)(4) are the only ones subject to a recommendation. 

They are the only ones mentioned affirmatively in the statute. 

The exclusion only of drug offenses, added in 1956 as the 

last sentence of§ 1251(b), has no legislative history other than 

Congress' displeasure with decisions which permitted 

recommendations in drug offense cases, Thus with the lack of any 

vagueness or uncertainty created by the addition of the exception 

as to drugs the original clarity remained. There is presented no 

basis for a construction of the subsection to include all other 

deportable offenses, One group--crimes involving moral 

turpitude--was the only subject of the original subsection with 

the detailed procedure for a recommendation as to it. To this the 

drug exception was added, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2132 Document: 01019844454 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 4 
' I 

Statutes relating to deportation of aliens are liberally 

construed in favor of the alien concerned as the deportation 

penalty can be harsh. Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6. 

However, the application of this doctrine in the case before us 

does not lead to the construction sought by appellant. 

The Ninth Circuit in Jew Ten v. I.N.S., 307 F.2d 832, 

considered the same argument as here advanced by the appellant 

including the impact of the 1956 exclusion of drug offenses. The 

court there reached the same conclusion as herein expressed--the 

recommendation provision is applicable only to offenses described 

in§ 125l(a)(4) and no other deportable offenses. See also Oviawe 

v. I.N.S., 853 F.2d 1428 (7th Cir.); Delgado-Chavez v. I.N.S,, 765 

F.2d 868 (9th Cir.). 

In United States v. Gonzales, 582 F.2d 1162 (7th Cir,), the 

court upheld the trial court's refusal to consider a 

recommendation where the offense was not within§ 125l(a)(4), 

There the offense was drug related and thus, of course, expressly 

excluded, but the issue as to whether the recommendation need be 

considered at all by the trial judge would there be the same as in 

the case before us as to non-included offenses. 

We have quoted above the words of the trial judge at 

sentencing on this issue, and again, we construe it as a statement 

that the suggestion that a recommendation be made did not need to 

be considered on its merits. 

AFFIRMED, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2132 Document: 01019844454 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 5