Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20195/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cipriano Morales-Palacios
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 28, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CIPRIANO MORALES-PALACIOS, also known as

Gildardo Morales-Palacios, also known as Gerardo

Morales-Palacios,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

Cipriano Morales-Palacios(“Morales”) appeals his convictionofattempted illegal reentry into

the United Statesfollowing deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Previously, in United States

v. Trevino-Martinez, we held that section 1326 does not require the government to prove specific

intent in the context of a completed reentry. 86 F.3d 65, 68-69 (5th Cir. 1996). In the current action,

Morales asserts that under section 1326 the offense of attempted illegal reentry — unlike completed

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
2

reentry — is a specific intent crime because it embodies the common law meaning of “attempt.”

Because section 1326 is a regulatory offense, rather than a traditional common law crime, we join the

majorityof circuitsin concluding that specific intent is not an element ofthe crime of attempted illegal

reentry into the United States. Overruling Morales’s challenges centered on that point, we affirm the

conviction. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following facts have been stipulated by both parties. On July 25, 1988, Morales, a

Mexican citizen, applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) for legal status as a

Special Agricultural Worker. The INS assigned to him the “A-file” numbered A93-107-012, and on

December 1, 1990, granted Morales lawful permanent resident status in the United States. 

From the period of October 6, 1994 to September 25, 1998, Morales was arrested and

convicted, on three separate occasions, with transporting or selling a controlled substance in Los

Angeles, California. On each occasion, INS officials subsequently found him in custody under the

aliases of “Gerardo Morales,” “Gildardo Morales-Palacios,” “Gildardo Palacios,” or “Gildardo

Morales-Palacios”. Based on the false aliases provided, on each occasion the INS assigned Morales

the A-file numbered A72-903-803 and thereafter deported him to Mexico as an aggravated felon.

After the first two deportations, Morales returned to the United States in an unknown manner and

submitted an application for a replacement of his previously issued INS permanent resident alien card

in the name of Cipriano Morales-Palacios. 

Following the third deportation, on July 15, 2001, Morales returned to the United States at

the port of entry in Hidalgo, Texas, and informed an INS official that he had an expired permanent

resident status. Using the name Cipriano Morales-Palacios, Morales applied for an INS I-193 Form,

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
3

“waiver of passport and/or visa,” paid the waiver fee, and was admitted as a permanent resident alien.

On July24, 2001, Morales appeared at the MexicanConsulate inHouston, Texas, and applied

for a Mexican passport also in the name of Cipriano Morales-Palacios. On August 8, 2001, Morales

inquired about the status of his permanent resident alien card at an INS office in Houston. An INS

official ran a computer check and determined that Morales had been issued A-file number A93-107-

012. The computer check also revealed that Morales had been granted lawful permanent resident

status in Florida in 1990, which had been renewed in 1995 in California. Based on the information

Morales provided, an INS official incorrectly issued Morales a temporary stamp on his Mexican

passport and visa which authorized his presence in the United States until August 7, 2002. 

OnNovember 4, 2001, and February7, 2002, Morales arrived at theHouston Intercontinental

Airport on a flight from Mexico City, Mexico. On April 19, 2002, Morales again arrived at the

Houston Intercontinental Airport from Mexico City, Mexico, and he presented his expired Mexican

passport and visa to INS officials containing the temporary INS stamp authorizing his presence in the

United States until August 7, 2002. An INS official ran a computer check and determined that the

nameCipriano Morales-Palacios was a possible alias used bya previously-deported aggravated felon.

At that point, Morales was taken to a secondary inspection area, where a fingerprint check revealed

that Morales had indeed been previously deported, under a false name, as an aggravated felon.

Morales was arrested and taken into custody. 

On June 12, 2002, a federal grand jury issued a one count indictment charging Morales with

illegal reentry after deportation following the commitment of an aggravated felony in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). On August 19, 2002, Morales was charged in a two

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
 

1

 The proposed instructions included the following mens rea element: “That, at the time alleged

in the indictment, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily attempted to enter into the United States

with the intent to do so knowing that he did not have the consent of the Attorney General . . . .” The

proposed instruction also stated that: “If you find that the defendant did not obtain the consent of the

Attorney General but have a reasonable doubt that he mistakenly believed that he had obtained such

consent, then you must find that he did not intend to enter the United States unlawfully and further

find the defendant ‘not guilty.’”

 

2 During pre-trial proceedings, both parties agreed, and the district court approved, that Morales

would waive his right to a jury trial on the condition that if following a conviction by the district

court, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, the waiver of the jury trial would not apply. 

4

count, superseding indictment, with one count of illegal reentry and one count of attempted illegal

reentry both in violation of section1326(a) and section 1326 (b)(2). 

During the pretrial conference, Moralessubmitted proposed jury instructions on the elements

of count two ofthe superseding indictment for attempted illegalreentry.1 In response to the proposed

jury instruction on the mens rea element of specific intent, the government filed a motion in limine

to exclude any evidence of “good faith” and “mistake” on the part of Morales regarding whether he

had the consent of the Attorney General to reenter. The district court found that section 1326 is a

general intent statute and does not require a different standard for attempted reentry than is required

for the underlying offense. Thus, the district court granted the government’s motion in limine, but

refused to submit Morales’s proposed jury instruction. 

The government proceeded to trial solely on the attempted illegal reentry count and

abandoned the illegal reentry count. On September 25, 2002, the district court conducted a bench

trial2and found Morales guilty of count two of the superseding indictment. In a judgment entered

February 7, 2003, the district court sentenced Morales to an imprisonment term of 87 months, to be

followed by 3 yearssupervised release. The district court imposed a $100 special assessment and did

not order a fine. Morales timely filed a notice of appeal.

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
5

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Morales challengesthe jury instruction on the count of attempted illegalreentryundersection

1326. He contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that specific intent

is not an essential element of attempted illegal reentry. Although this court usually reviews a district

court’s failure to grant a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion, we review de novo

whether the jury instruction misstated an element of the statutory crime. United States v. Ho, 311

F.3d 589, 605 (5th Cir. 2002).

Morales also challenges the district court’s grant of the government’s motion in limine to

exclude his testimony. Morales asserts that he was prejudiced by the district court’s refusal to allow

him to testify to his subjective belief that the Attorney General granted him permission to legally

reenter the United States. We apply a deferential standard in reviewing a district court’s evidentiary

rulings, reversing only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 411 (5th

Cir. 2003). Even then, the error is not reversible unless the defendant was prejudiced. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Intent Requirement for Attempted Illegal Reentry under section 1326

This court has repeatedly held that when a previously deported alien illegally reenters or is

found within the United Statesit is clear that specific intent is not a required element ofsection 1326.

United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 928 (2001);

United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237 (5thCir. 2000); Trevino-Martinez,supra. We

also have previously acknowledged a “clear dist inction” between actual reentry and attempted

reentry, the former requires physical presence and freedomfromofficialrestraint while the latter only

requires a previously deported alien to approach a port of entry and make a false claim of citizenship

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
 

3

 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) provides in relevant part:

Any alien who — 

(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States

while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter

(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless

(A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission

from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s

reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed,

unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this

chapter or any prior Act,

shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

6

or non-resident alien status. United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (5th Cir.

1993). The issue presently before this court, which we have not previously addressed, is the

appropriate mensrea element for an attempted illegalreentry. Morales asserts that the district court

erred in denying his jury instruction requiring an intent to attempt to reenter the United States,

without the Attorney General’s express consent, as an element of section 1326. We cannot agree.

In conducting statutory interpretation, we begin our inquiry with the plain language of the

statute. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605 (1994). Here, the plain language of the statute

provides little explicit guidance concerning the intent required for a violation. Under section 1326,

the language simply statesthat a previously deported alien who “enters, attemptsto enter, or is at any

time found in” the United States without the express consent of the Attorney General is prohibited.3

Clearly Congress has not spelled out the mental state required; rather, the language of the statute is

silent regarding an express mens rea requirement. Nothing in the plain language of section 1326

suggeststhat a previously deported alien cannot be convicted unless he knew he lacked the Attorney

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
7

General’s express consent to reenter. Quite the contrary, “the requirement that the Attorney

General’s consent be ‘express’ is a warning that the alien not try to infer consent from ambiguous

circumstances.” United States v. Carlos-Colmenares, 253 F.3d 276, 278 (7th Cir. 2001).

Nonetheless, where a statute is silent as to intent, it becomes a question of legislative intent to be

construed by the court. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 252 (1922). We note that such

explicit silence, however, does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a

mens rea requirement. Staples, 511 U.S. at 605. In determining Congress’s implied intent we may

consider the statute in light of the background of common law principles. Id.

Morales puts forth the more substantial argument that insofar as an “attempt” has a settled

common law meaning — as requiring a specific intent — we must assume that Congress meant to

imply the same intent for an attempted illegal reentry. Morales contends that the common law

meaning of “attempt” requires a specific intent to commit an attempted illegal reentry, even if the

offense of illegal reentry itself does not require a specific intent. 

Morales relies upon the lone position of United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), a case which, like this one, involved an attempted illegal reentry for a

previously deported Mexican citizen. In Gracidas-Ulibarry, the defendant contended at trial that he

was asleep when he was driven to the port of entry, and thus never formed the specific intent to

reenter the United States illegally. 231 F.3d at 1191. Accordingly, Gracidas requested, and the

district court rejected, a jury instruction to allow the jury to find him guilty only if it concluded

beyond a reasonable doubt that Gracidas “intended to enter the United States without the consent”

of the Attorney General. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and held that

the crime of attempted illegal reentry into the United St ates includes the common law element of

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
8

specific intent. Id. at 1190. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[u]nlike its use of the term ‘enters’ in

§ 1326 for the crime ofillegalreentry, however, Congress’ use ofthe term ‘attempts’ does not reflect

silence as to intent but is consistent with a purpose to adopt [] the cluster of ideasthat were attached

to [the] borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken.” Id. at 1195 (citing

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952) (emphasis in original)).

We are not persuaded by Morales’s assertion, nor by the reasoning of Gracidas-Ulibarry,

because imputing the common-law meaning of elements of crimes into statutes is compelling only

with respect to traditional crimes as distinct from regulatory offenses. Carlos-Colmenares, 253 F.3d

at 279. To avoid punishing ostensibly innocent conduct, in traditional offenses such as robbery,

stealing, larceny, and its variants, we interpret statutes to codify the common law of crimes even if

their enactments were silent on the subject. Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 266-67 (2000);

Morissette, 342 U.S. at 251-52; see also United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc, 513 U.S. 64, 70

(1994) (stating that “the presumption in favor ofscienter requires a court to read into a statute only

that mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from otherwise innocent conduct”).

In such traditional offenses, we must assume that “[w]here Congress borrows terms of art in which

are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and

adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word . . . .” Carter, 530 U.S. at 264

(quoting Morissette, 342 U.S. at 263) (emphasis omitted). On the contrary, however, the Supreme

Court has clearly instructed that the scope of the cannon on imputing common-law meaning does not

sweep so broadly as to apply to the unique nature of regulatory crimes. Balint, 258 U.S. at 251-52

(stating that although the common law requiresscienter as a necessary element of crimes,such a view

is modified for prosecutions under regulatory statutes “the purpose of which would be obstructed by

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
9

such a requirement”); see also United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 492 n.10 (1997) (stating that

whenCongress describes an offense analogousto a common law crime the court rejectsthe “apparent

view that any term that is an element of a common-law crime carries with it every other aspect of that

common-law crime when the term is used in a statute”).

The Supreme Court has long held that where the peculiar nature and quality of the offense

requires an effective means of regulation, such legislation may dispense with the conventional

requirement for criminal conduct, to-wit, awareness of some wrongdoing. Morissette, 342 U.S. at

259; see also United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 281 (1943) (stating that a statute

criminalizing the shipment of adulterated or misbranded drugs did not require knowledge that the

items were misbranded or adulterated); United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, (1971) (stating that

a statute criminalizing possession of unregistered hand grenades did not require knowledge that the

hand grenades were unregistered); but see Staples, 511 U.S. at 609 (stating that the destructive

potential of guns does not require owners to dispense with proof of knowledge of the characteristics

that make a weapon a “firearm”). The rationale for dispensing with a mens rea requirement with

respect to elements of regulat ory offenses was clearly enunciated in Freed, where the Court

concluded that rejecting a specific intent requirement “may well be premised on the theory that one

would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenadesis not an innocent act.” 401 U.S.

at 609. As a result, we must exhibit extreme caution in allowing criminal defendants charged with

regulatory crimes to utilize a mistake of fact defense where the mere illegal conduct may seriously

threaten the community’s health or safety and issufficient to put individuals on notice that they stand

“in responsible relation to a public danger.” Staples, 511 U.S. at 611 (quoting, Dotterweich, 320

U.S. at 281).

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
 

4 We note that Morales also relies on United States v. Morales-Tovar, for the proposition that an

attempted illegalreentry must include a specific intent element. 37 F. Supp. 2d 846, 851 (W.D. Tex.

1999) (finding that a conviction for attempt under § 1326 must include an element of specific intent

to avoid the paradox of convicting persons who merely make inquiries at a port of entry). We do not

find this precedent persuasive. In Morales-Tovar the defendant’s conduct ofmerely asking questions

10

There can be little doubt that section 1326 imposes criminal penalties on a class of persons

whose mental state — ignorance of the consent of the Attorney General — would not make their

attempted reentry entirely innocent. Section 1326 is not based on any common law crime, but is a

mala prohibita regulatory offense limited to persons who have previously been deported into the

United States. Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 788 (1968) (stating that Congress

has the plenary power “to exclude or to expel all aliens or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon

certain conditions[as] an inherent and inalienable right which is essential to the safety, independence

and welfare of every sovereign nation”). The Supreme Court instructed in Morissette, that the

“purpose and obvious effect of doing away with the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the

prosecution’s path to conviction.” 324 U.S. at 263. We are not reluctant to impute that purpose to

Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose previous

deportation alertsthem to the probability of violating section 1326. As stated by Judge Posner of the

SeventhCircuit, “[d]eportation itselfissufficient to impress upon the mind ofthe deportee that return

is forbidden.” Carlos-Colmenares, 253 F.23d at 278. In effect, under section 1326 a specific intent

requirement is unnecessary, because the regulatory nature of the statute makes the presumption of

unlawful intent conclusive. A previously deported alien has a unique set of knowledge that might not

otherwise exist for defendants in traditional common law crimes; upon being deported, an alien has

been given both oral and written notice that he or she cannot reenter without the express permission

of the Attorney General. The act of attempting to reenter therefore speaks for itself.4

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
wasinsufficient for an attempted reentry because asthe district court found “there [was] no evidence

that the defendant ever actually applied for admission to the United States.” Id. at 849. In contrast,

on the present factsthere is no dispute that Morales voluntarily attempted to reenter the United States

using a plethora of false aliases.

11

Here, a previously deported alien, such as Morales, would hardly be surprised to learn that

by attempting to reenter the United States such behavior is far from being purely innocuous. The

process of deportation sufficiently placed Morales on notice that he stood in reasonable relation to

danger if he attempted to reenter the United St ates without government consent. Morales clearly

intended, through the use of false aliases, to voluntarily attempt to reenter the United Statesillegally,

thus it matters not that his mental state may have reaso nably led him to believe he did so with the

government’s consent. Congress weighed the possible injustice of subjecting a previously deported

alien to criminal liability without showing specific intent of consent from the Attorney General,

against the evil of exposing the community to the dangersthese individuals may pose, and concluded

that the latter wasthe result preferably to be avoided. We find that when a previously deported alien,

like Morales, voluntarily attempts to reenter the United States, he does so at his own peril. 

In short, we note that two circuits other than the Ninth Circuit have found that a violation of

an attempted illegalreentry criminalizes only a general intent. See United States v. Peralt-Reyes, 131

F.3df 956 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Reyes-Medina, 53 F.3d 327 (1st Cir. 1995). Today, we

join the majority of circuits holding that for an attempted illegal reentry under section 1326 specific

intent is not an element of the statute. We also note that in proving an attempted illegal reentry it is

sufficient that the government demonstrates that a previously deported alien knowingly intended to

reenter the United States — general intent with respect to the actus reas of the crime — rather than

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/28/2004
12

showing that such an alien had a reasonable but mistaken belief that he had the consent of the

Attorney General to reenter the country. 

II. Motion in limine to Exclude Subjective Belief

Morales also arguesthat the district court erred in granting the government’smotion in limine

to exclude evidence of Morales’s subjective belief that he had the consent of the Attorney General

to reenter the United States. Because this argument vitally depends on the presumption that specific

intent is an element of an attempted illegal reentry, based on the aforementioned, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion in limine.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the conviction of Morales for attempted illegal

reentry into the United States.

 Case: 03-20195 Document: 0051244164 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/28/2004