Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cr-00537/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cr-00537-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Ascencio Garcia
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL ASCENCIO GARCIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cr-00537-VC-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE, 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART THE GOVERNMENT'S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39, 46

1. The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on outrageous government 

conduct is denied. A defendant seeking dismissal of an indictment must prove that the 

government's conduct was so "excessive, flagrant, scandalous, intolerable, and offensive as to 

violate due process." United States v. Edmonds, 103 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 1996). The alleged 

outrageous conduct of which the defendant complains does not rise to the level of a due process 

violation. See United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 1991) (cataloging examples of 

arguably outrageous conduct that has been upheld in the face of due process challenges).

2. The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged invalidity of the 

underlying order of removal is denied. Even assuming that the defendant did not validly waive his 

right to appeal the removal order, and further assuming that the defendant did not validly waive 

his right to counsel, the defendant cannot show that the removal order was fundamentally unfair. 

See United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2004). The defendant 

argues he was prejudiced by an invalid waiver of his right to counsel because, had he been 

represented, his counsel could have advised the defendant to seek to withdraw his guilty plea in 

the criminal case that served as a predicate to his removal. He contends he would have had 

grounds to withdraw the plea based on his counsel's failure, in the criminal case, to fully inform 

him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to an aggravated felony. See United 

Case 3:14-cr-00537-VC Document 53 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

States v. Bonilla, 637 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 2011). But even if the defendant's counsel in the 

criminal case failed to adequately inform him of the consequences of pleading guilty, the 

defendant concedes that the Superior Court judge informed him that a guilty plea "would" result in 

the defendant being deported. Thus, unlike in Bonilla, here the defendant had knowledge of the 

immigration consequences of his plea prior to pleading guilty. Consequently, the defendant has 

not made a plausible case that he could have avoided removal if he had been represented in the 

immigration proceedings. See, e.g., Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2007)

(holding that "Womack was not prejudiced by his counsel's [mischaracterization of the likely 

outcome of the plea] because the plea agreement and the state district court's plea canvass alerted 

Womack to the potential consequences of his guilty plea").

3. For the reasons stated on the record in the pretrial conference, the Court rules as follows

the defendant's motions in limine:

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude any unnoticed 404(b) 

evidence, is granted.

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude or limit evidence of the 

defendant's prior criminal conviction, is granted in part. 

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude the Warrants of Removal, is 

denied.

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude the Notice to Appear, is 

granted.

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude the Certificate of NonExistence of Record, is denied as moot.

o The defendant's Motion in Limine No. 6, to exclude the I-213 reports, is denied as 

moot.

The parties will meet and confer on redactions to any documents.

4. For the reasons stated on the record in the pretrial conference, the Court rules as follows 

the government's motions in limine:

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 1, to admit documents in the defendant's 

alien file, is granted in part and denied as moot in part (denied as moot with respect 

to the I-213 reports).

Case 3:14-cr-00537-VC Document 53 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude references to punishment, 

including references to the defendant's liberty being at stake and other comparable 

references, is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude information not in evidence, 

is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude extrinsic evidence for 

impeachment purposes, is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude material not produced under 

Rule 16(b), is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 6, to exclude assertions about the illegality 

of the defendant's prior removal, is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 7, to exclude references to the defendant's 

belief that his reentry into the United States was lawful, is granted.

o The government's Motion in Limine No. 8, to preclude the defendant from

inquiring about the basis for the defendant's arrest by ICE agents, is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cr-00537-VC Document 53 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 3