Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03163/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3163

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 28, 2005

Filed: August 15, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Ortiz-Ramirez appeals the judgment the district court1

 entered after

finding him guilty of illegal reentry. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

erred in admitting a Mexican military identification card without proper

authentication and that, but for the identification card, the government would have

been unable to prove that Ortiz-Ramirez was an alien.

Appellate Case: 04-3163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2005 Entry ID: 1940285
-2-

Counsel’s argument fails. We find that there is sufficient competent evidence

in the record--apart from the military identification card--to support the judgment, see

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (making it illegal for alien who has been deported to enter or be

found in United States without Attorney General’s express consent), and we are

confident that the district court would have reached the same result even if the card

had been excluded. Thus, we conclude that admission of the card was, at most,

harmless error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (any error that does not affect substantial

rights must be disregarded); Greater Kan. City Laborers Pension Fund v. Superior

Gen. Contractors, Inc., 104 F.3d 1050, 1057 (8th Cir. 1997) (admission of

incompetent evidence at bench trial will be deemed harmless if sufficient competent

evidence exists in record to support judgment and it does not appear that district court

was induced by incompetent evidence to make essential findings that it otherwise

would not have made); United States v. J.H.H., 22 F.3d 821, 829-30 (8th Cir. 1994)

(admission of allegedly improperly admitted testimony at bench trial was harmless

error because record contained ample evidence, without testimony, to support

defendants’ convictions, and district court would have reached same result even if

testimony had been excluded).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2005 Entry ID: 1940285