2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-20-2010 

# U SA v . M arco Reb elo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3998

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M ar c o Rebe lo " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 575. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/575NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3998 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR CO P AUL O R E BE L O, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 02120 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G arr ettE . B r ow n, C hi ef J udge Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember17, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember20, 2010 )

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge M arc o P au lo R eb elo a p p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of the g o v ern m en t’ s mo t i o n f o rs u mma r yj u d g me n ta n d h i s d e n a tu r a l i z a t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m.-2- I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s onl ythe fa ct s r el evantt o our analy si s. In M a y1 9 9 5 , R e b e lo w a s in v o lv e d in a n a lterc a tio n w ith a p o lice o f f ice r th a t led to n u m e ro u s c rim in a l ch a rg e s. In Ju n e 1 9 9 5 , w h ile th o se c h a rg e s w e re p e n d in g , R e b e lo a p p lied f o r n a tu ra liza tio n . In h is a p p lica tio n , R e b e lo in d ica ted th a t h e h a d p re v io u sly been “ arr es t ed. ” I n t he r equi r ed expl anat i on of thatarr es t , R ebel o w r ot e: “M ay14, 1995

– D iso rd e rlyP e rso n s O f f e n se – C h a rg e s D ism iss e d .” B ysig n in g th e a p p lica tio n , R e b e lo acknow l edged, underpenal t yof per j ury , thatthe cont ent s of hi s appl i cat i on w er e true and corr ect . R ebel o conce des t hatw hen he s i gned the appl i cat i on he “kne w that[he] had been a r r es t ed, ” thatt he pendi ng char ges w er e “mor e than j us ta di s or der l yper s ons o f f e n s e ,” a n d th a t th e c h a rg e s “ w e re n o t d is m is s e d .” I n J ul y1995, R ebel o pl ed gui l t yt o one countof aggr avat ed as s aul tar i s i ng fr om t he M ay1995 i nci dentand w as s ent ence d t o t w o y ear s pr obat i on. I n D ece m ber1995, w hi l e on pr obat i on, R ebel o w as gr ant ed natur al i zat i on. I n a dec l ar at i on, the D i s t r i ct Ad j u d i c a t i o n s Of

f i c e rf o rt h e Bu r e a u o f

Cu s t o ms a n d Bo r d e rP r o t e c t i o n ( a n I NS s ucce s s orent i t y ) w ho appr oved R ebel o’ s natur al i zat i on s t at ed thathad R ebel o been t rut hful i n hi s appl i cat i on, he “w oul d nothave a ppr oved hi s natur al i zat i on appl i cat i on [butr ] ather. . . w oul d have s chedul ed an i nt ervi ew and cont i nued hi s appl i cat i on for fur t herr evi ew . ” M or eover , had he know n of R ebel o’ s pr obat i on, he “w oul d haveT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1451( a) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. -3- re c o m m e n d e d th a t h is a p p lic a tio n f o r n a tu ra liz a tio n b e d e n ie d .” In N o v em b er 1 9 9 7 , the IN S issue d a n o ti ce o f in tent to rev o k e R eb elo’s natur al i zat i on beca us e he c om m i t t ed a c r i m e of mora l turpi tude pr i ort o hi s natur al i zat i on a p p lica tio n a n d , thu s, la c k e d g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter ; h e w a s o n p ro b a tio n a t th e tim e o f h is n a tu ra liz a tio n a n d , a c c o rd in g ly, w a s in e lig ib le f o r n a tu ra liz a tio n p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 316. 10( c) ( 1) ; and he pr ocur ed hi s natur al i zat i on byw i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng a mat er i al fac t . I n 1998, t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui tdecl ar ed the admi ni s t r at i ve d e n a tu ra liz a tio n p ro c e s s in v a lid . See G or bach v. R eno , 219 F. 3d 1087 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( en ban c). T hu s, i n M ay20 01 , t he g ov ernm ent i nit i at ed a civi l den atural i zat i on act i on against R ebel o i n fede r al cour tpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1451( a) , as s ert i ng the s ame gr ounds for denatur al i zat i on i tr ai s ed i n N ovember1997. I n r es pons e, R ebel o ar gued, among ot her t hi ngs , t hatSect i on 316. 10( c) ( 1) w as pr om ul gat ed i n i nt er i m fi nal form i n vi ol at i on of the pr ocedur al m andat es of the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s agr eed, g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, an d rev o k ed R eb elo’s natur al i zat i on aft erfi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fornatur al i zat i on beca us e of hi s pr obat i on and fi ndi ng t hathe w i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent ed a mat er i al fac ton hi s natur al i zat i on appl i cat i on. R ebel o t i m el yappea l ed. 1-4- II. A. “W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand appl ythe s ame st andar d us ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . ” Sm i th v. Johns on & J ohns on , 593 F. 3d 280, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . Sum m aryj udgm ents hal l be gr ant ed onl y“i f the pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no gen uine i ssue as t o an ym at eri al factand that the m ov ant i s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c)(2). B. A t hr es hol d i s s ue i s w hetherthi s ci vi l denatur al i zat i on act i on i s t i m e- barr ed byt he

“ c a tch -a ll” s tatu te o f

lim itatio n s o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 2 , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t: E xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byA ctof C ongr es s , an ac t i on, s ui tor pr ocee di ng fort he enf

or cementof anyci vi l fi ne, penal t y , orfor fei tur e, p e c u n iar yo r o th e rw ise , sh a ll n o t b e e n ter tain e d u n les s c o m m e n c e d w ith in f i v e y e a r s f

r o m th e d a t e wh e n th e c l a i m f i r s ta c c ru e d i f

, wi t h i n th e s a me p e rio d , the o f

f e n d e r o r th e p ro p e rtyis f o u n d w ith in th e U n ited S tate s in or dert hatpr opers ervi ce maybe made ther eon. B eca us e the I N A does notcont ai n an expr es s per i od of l i m i t at i ons fori ni t i at i ng denatur al i zat i on pr ocee di ngs , w e ar e pr es ent ed w i t h t he pos s i bi l i t ythatSect i on 2462 appl i es . A ccor di ngl y , R ebel o ar gues thatdenatur al i zat i on i s a “pe nal t y. . . orfor fei tur e” as t he phr as e i s us ed i n Sect i on 2462. W e di s agr ee. “[S ]t atutes of li m i t at i on soug ht t o b e app l i ed to bar r i gh t s of t he G ov ernm ent, m ust r ece i ve a s t r i ctcons t ruct i on i n favorof the G overnm ent . ” B a da ra cc o v. C o m m ’r , 46428 U . S. C . § 791 pr ovi ded that“no s ui torpr os ecut i on s hal l be mai nt ai ned, forany 2 penal t yorfor fei tur e, pecuni aryorotherw i s e, acc rui ng underthe l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es ” unl es s t he s ui t“s hal l be comm ence d w i t hi n fi ve y ear s fr om the t i m e w hen the p e n a lty o r f

o rf e itu re a c c ru e d .” -5- U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 1 (1 9 8 4 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); accord SE Cv. Mohn , 4 6 5 F .3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 4 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (Se cti o n 2 4 6 2 sh o u ld b e stri ctl yco n stru ed in g o v ern m en t’ s fa v o r). T he p reci se st atute of l i m i t at i on s quest i on rai sed bythis app eal i s one o f fi rs t i m pr es s i on. C our t s have, how ever , addr es s ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons as i tr el at es t o 28 U .S .C . § 7 9 1 , S e c tio n 2 4 6 2 ’s p re d e c e ss o r sta tu te w h ich w a s s u b sta n tiv e lyid e n tica l to Sect i on 2462. I nt erpr et i ng Sect i on 791, the Supr eme C our thel d t hat“pena l t yor 2 for fei tur e” means “s om ethi ng i m pos ed i n a puni t i ve w ayforan i nfr act i on of publ i c l aw . ” Meekerv. Lehigh V

al l ey R. R . C o. , 236 U . S. 412, 423 ( 1915) ( emphasi s added) . W her e, a s h e re , d e n a tu ra liz a tio n s e rv e s “ a s a re m e d yf o r c itiz e n s h ip f

ra u d u le n tly o b ta in e d ,” denatur al i zat i on “i s r egar ded notas puni s hm entbutas a nec es s arypartof r egul at i ng natur al i zat i on of al i ens . ” E . B . v. V erni ero , 11 9 F . 3d 10 77 , 11 01 -02 (3d C i r. 19 97 ). T hu s, a dena tur al i zat i on act i on i s notan ac t i on s eeki ng the enf or cementof a pe nal t yor for fei tur e, t he s ubj ectm at t erof Sect i on 2462. Instruct i ve in this regar d is U ni t ed Stat es v. H

auck , w h ich a d d resse d w h ethe r a d en atura li za ti o n p roc ee d ing w as ti m e-b arred u n d er S ec ti o n 7 9 1 . 1 5 5 F . 2 d 1 4 1 (2d C ir . 1946) . T her e, i n cons i der i ng t he def endant s ’ ar gum entthatthei rdenatur al i zat i on w as t i m e- barr ed, t he Second Ci r cui tbl unt l ys t at ed: “[r ] el i ance on 28 U . S. C . A . § 791 as the a p p lica b le s tatu te o f

lim itatio n s is a h o p e les s c lu tch in g a t stra w s; th a t sta tu te is c o m p lete ly-6-

i r r el evant . ” I

d. at143 ( s t at i ng t hats t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum entw as “s o cl ear l yw i t hout m eri tt hat [i t ] m aybe d i sposed o f sum m ari l y ”). In l i gh tof the stri ctcon struct i on w e m ust aff or d Sect i on 2462, w e hol d t hatt he ca t ch- al l s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons of 28 U . S. C . § 2462 – l i ke i t s pr edec es s or– does notappl yt o denatur al i zat i on pr ocee di ngs br oughtpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1451( a) . T hus , t hi s denatur al i zat i on act i on w as nott i m e- barr ed. B. I n hi s ans w erand af

fi r m at i ve def

ens es , R ebel o cont ended that8 C . F. R . § 316. 10( c) ( 1) “w as i l l egal l ypr om ul gat ed as an i nt er i m f i nalr egulat i on w i t houtthe pr i or not i ce a nd del ay ed ef

fec t i venes s r equi r ed bythe A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct . ” ( A 96 ( emphasi s added) . ) R ebel o chal l enges onl ythe pr ocedur al val i di t yof Sect i on 316. 10( c) ( 1) , noti t s s ubs t ance . Sect i on 316. 10 w as pr om ul gat ed as an i nt er i m fi nal r egul at i on i n 1991. 50 Fed. R eg. 50, 475 ( O ct . 7, 1991) . I n February1995, Sect i on 316. 10 w as pr om ul gat ed i n fi nal f o rm . See 60 Fed. R eg. 6647 ( Feb. 3, 1995) . B eca us e R ebel o di d notappl yfor natur al i zat i on unt i l J une 1995, i tw as the fi nal r egul at i on – notthe i nt er i m fi nal r egul at i on

– th a t b a rr e d h is a p p lic a tio n , a n d h e d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e f in a l r e g u la tio n . A s s um i ng ar

guendo t he pr ocedur al i nval i di t yof the i nt er i m fi nal r egul at i on, s uch in v a lid ity o f

f e rs R e b e lo n o re lie f. S e e P a u lse n v . D a n iels , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 8 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (in ter im e a rlyre lea se re g u latio n o n lyin v a lid a s to th o se p e rso n s a f f e c ted “ b yit pr i ort o th e iss u a n c e o f th e f in a l ru le” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); accord Mi l l erv. G al l egos , 125A lth o u g h n o t ra ise d to th e D istric t C o u rt, stan d in g is ju risd ictio n a l an d n o t su b jec t to 3 w a iv e r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

ays , 515 U . S. 737, 742 ( 1995) . W e mayaff i r m on any g ro u n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . See H ughes v. Long , 2 4 2 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). I n l i ghtof ourhol di ng, w e nee d notaddr es s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve gr ound 4 f o r r e v o k in g R e b e lo ’s n a tu ra liz a tio n . -7- F ed . A p p ’x 9 3 4 , 9 3 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B ec au se th e f inal reg u lat ion b arred R eb elo’s n a tu ra liz a tio n , a n yp u rp o rt e d in ju ry is n o t f

a ir ly tra c e a b le to th e in te ri m f in a l r e g u la tio n . T her efor e, R ebel o l acke d s t andi ng t o chal l enge the pr ocedur al val i di t yof the i nt er i m fi nal re g u latio n ; in d e e d , h e c ites n o a u th o rityto th e c o n tra ry . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re jec t h is 3 pr ocedur al chal l enge. 4 III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .