T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e J a c k J . C a m p, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** * the D i s tr i c tof

N orthe rn G e or gi a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. H ECTO R CA STA N ED A - M ELCH O R, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50400 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 4 2 0 7 - L AB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rry A l a n B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y 13, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: F A R R IS and S IL V E R M A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C A M P , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED JU L 15 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

H e c t orC a s t a ne da - M e l c horappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orha rbor i ng i l l e ga l a l i e ns a nd f orc ons pi r a c y t o ha rbori l l e ga l a l i e ns . A f t e rc ons i de r i ng hi s a r gum e nt s a nd the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l , w e a f f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on. I . Ba c k g r o und U ni t e d S t a t e s B or de rP a tr ol a ge nt s a rr e s t e d C a s t a ne da - M e l c hora f t e rf i ndi ng e l e ve n i l l e ga l a l i e ns hi dde n i n hi s tr a i l e rhom e i n C a l e xi c o, C a l i f orni aon N ove m be r21, 2008. H e w a s i ndi c t e d on f ourc ount s of

ha rbor i ng i l l e ga l a l i e ns

“ w i th the i nt e ntt o vi ol a t e the i m m i gr a t i on l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ” i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) a nd ( v) ( I I ) , a nd one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o ha rbor ille g a l a lie n s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ,( ii) , ( iii) a n d ( v ) ( I ) . A ttri al , four of the al i ens t es t i fi ed thatC as t aneda-M el chor had h i dd en them i n hi s tr a i l e ra nd i ns truc t e d the m i n how t o a voi d de t e c t i on by f e de r a l i m m i gr a t i on autho ri t i es . O ver hi s obj ec t i on , the di stri ctcourtused the N i nth C i rc ui tP att ern I n s tru c tio n f

o rth e o f f e n s e a n d in s tru c te d th e ju ry to f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u iltyif

it f o u n d th a t h e h a d “c o n c e a le d [ ille g a l a lie n s ] f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

a v o id in g th e ir det ec t i on by i m m i grat i on autho ri t i es . ” A ft erdel i bera t i ng , the j ury c on vi ct ed C as t aneda-M el chor of al l fi ve coun t s. S ub se qu ent l y, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d C as t aneda-M el chor t o 3 0 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , fol l ow ed by three ye ar s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e .3

I I . D e f

e nda nt ’ s C o nt e nt i o ns C as t aneda-M el chor appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on s. H e argues thatthe j ury in s tru c tio n s g iv e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s tru c tiv e lya m e n d e d th e in d ic tm e n t in h is ca se by si gn i fi cant l y broadeni ng the offe nse c harged. In the al t ernat i ve, he ar gu es tha tthe j ury i ns truc t i ons w e r e af a t a l va r i anc e f

r om the i ndi c tm e nt . F i na l l y , he c o n te n d s th a t th is C o u rt s h o u ld v a c a te h is c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n if it v a c a te s h is c onvi c t i on f

orha rbor i ng i l l e ga l a l i e ns . W e a f f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on f

orthe r e a s ons d is c u s s e d b e lo w . I I I . A n a ly s is T h is C o u rt r e v ie w s a n a lle g a tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s tru c tiv e ly a m e n d e d a n in d ic tm e n t o rp e rm itte d av a r ia n c e o f a n in d ic tm e n t de no vo . U ni t ed S ta te s v . A d a m s o n , 2 9 1 F .3 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . B h a g a t, 4 3 6 F . 3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). “ A co n stru ct i v e am en d m en tm an d at es p er se re vers al , ho w ever , a var i ance w arrant s r ever sa l on l y i f the defendant ’ s ‘ subst ant i al ri gh t s’ w er e a ff

ec t ed. ” B hagat , 43 6 F . 3d at11 45 (quo t i ng A dam son, 29 1 F . 3d at 6 1 5 ) . A c o n s tru c tiv e a m e n d m e n t e x is ts w h e r e “( 1 ) th e r e is ac o m p le x o f f a c ts pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l di s t i nc t l y di f f e r e ntf r om thos e s e tf

orth i n the c ha r gi ng i nstrum ent , or (2) the cr i m e c harged i n the i nd i ctm entw as subst ant i al l y a l t er ed at4

tri al , so thati tw as i m po ss i bl e t o k no w w hether the grand j ury w ou l d h ave i nd i ct ed f o rth e c r im e a c tu a llyp r o v e d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . A b r a m s o n , 2 9 1 F .3 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . V o n S to ll, 7 2 6 F .2 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . T h e ju ry in s tru c tio n s d id n o t c o n s tru c tiv e lya m e n d th e in d ic tm e n t in th is c a s e be c aus e , a c c or di ng t o bi ndi ng pr e c e de nti n thi s C i r c ui t , the l a ngua ge c ont a i ne d i n the i ndi c tm e nt( “ w i th the i nt e ntt o vi ol a t e the i m m i gr a t i on l a w s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” ) i s s y nony m ous w i th the l a ngua ge us e d i n the j ury i ns truc t i ons ( “ f or th e p u rp o s e o f

a v o id in g [ th e a lie n s ’] d e te c tio n b y im m ig r a tio n au th o r itie s ” ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . Y o u , 3 8 2 F .3 d 9 5 8 , 9 6 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n Y ou, thi s C ourtc ons i de r e d a n appe a l by tw o de f e nda nt s c onvi c t e d of h a rb o r in g ille g a l a lie n s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) . I d . a t 9 6 2 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t it c o u ld f in d th e d e f

e n d a n ts g u iltyif

it f ound tha tthe y ha d “ ha rbor e d . . . [ a n i l l e ga l a l i e n] f orthe purpos e of

a voi di ng [ the al i en’ s] det ec t i on by Im m i grat i on autho ri t i es . ” I d. at96 3. O n app ea l , they argued tha tthe j ury i ns truc t i ons m i s s t a t e d the e l e m e nt s of § 1324 by f

a i l i ng t o r e qui r e the j ury t o fi nd thatthe defendant s had i nt ended t o v i ol at e the l aw . Id. at96 5-66 . In a f f i rm i ng the c onvi c t i ons , thi s C ourthe l d tha tthe phr a s e s “ f orthe purpos e of a voi di ng [ the a l i e ns ’ ] de t e c t i on” a nd “ tha tthe de f e nda nti nt e nde d t o vi ol a t e the5

l aw ” are i n t erch an g eab l e an d th atb o th p h rases co n t ai n th e n ecessary m ens r ea for a c o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 1 3 2 4 . I d . Y ou control s i n thi s c as e, and i tho l ds thatthe l angu age use d i n C as t anedaM e l c hor ’ s j ury i ns truc t i on i s s y nony m ous w i th the l a ngua ge us e d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . T he r e f

or e , the j ury i ns truc t i ons di d nota l t e rthe c r i m e c ha r ge d i n the C a s t a ne da - M e l c hori ndi c tm e nt . A br a m s on, 291 F . 3d a t615; V on S t ol l , 726 F . 2d a t 5 8 6 . I n th e a lte rn a tiv e , C a s ta n e d a - M e lc h o ra r g u e s th a t if th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s d id n o t c o n s tru c tiv e ly a m e n d th e in d ic tm e n t, th e y c o n s titu te d af a ta l v a r ia n c e f

r o m it. H e c ont e nds tha ta l though the e vi de nc e m a y ha ve s how e d tha the c onc e a l e d a l i e ns for the pu rpose of a vo i di ng thei r det ec t i on by i m m i grat i on offi ce rs , no evi dence w a s p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l th a t h e in te n d e d to v io la te im m ig r a tio n la w s . T h is s e m a n tic d is tin c tio n d o e s n o t h e lp C a s ta n e d a - M e lc h o r . T hi s C ou rthas e xp l ai ned thata f at al vari ance occurs w here “ the evi dence of f e r e d a ttr i a l pr ove s f

a c t s m a t e r i a l l y di f

f e r e ntf r om thos e a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt ” a nd i f

the va r i a nc e a f

f e c t s the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . V on S t ol l , 72 6 F . 2d at58 6; B hagat , 43 6 F . 3d at11 46 . W here the di ff er ence betw ee n th e p r o o f o f f e r e d a t tr ia l a n d th e e v e n ts a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t is s o m in o ra s to6

no tm i sl ea d the defendanti n p re pari ng hi s def ense , the vari ance i s notfa t al . U ni t ed S t at es v. T si nh nahi

j i nn i e, 11 2 F . 3d 98 8, 99 1 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). T he e vi de nc e of

f e r e d a ttr i a l di d notpr ove f a c t s tha ta r e m a t e r i a l l y di f f e r e nt fr om tho se al l eged i n the i nd i ctm ent . T he evi dence attri al show ed thatel even i l l egal al i ens w er e f

ou nd hi dd en i n C as t aneda-M el chor’ s hou se , and that C as t aneda-M el chor had t ol d the al i ens thatthey m i gh tbe di sc ov er ed i f they l oo ked o u ts id e . I f

d if f e r e n c e e x is ts b e tw e e n th e e v id e n c e o f f e r e d a t tr ia l a n d th e a c ts c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , i ti s s o m i northa ti tc oul d notha ve m i s l e d the de f e nda nt i n p re pari ng for hi s tri al . Id. T here fore , the evi dence attri al w as no ta f at al v a r ia n c e f

r o m th e in d ic tm e n t. F i na l l y , C a s t a ne da - M e l c hora r gue d tha t , i f thi s C ourtva c a t e d hi s c onvi c t i on f o rh a rb o r in g ille g a l a lie n s it s h o u ld a ls o v a c a te h is c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to ha rbori l l e ga l a l i e ns . B e c aus e thi s C ourtde c l i ne s t o va c a t e the c onvi c t i on f or ha rbor i ng i l l e ga l a l i e ns , i tne e d notr e a c h C a s t a ne da - M e l c hor ’ s a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng h is co n sp irac y c o n v icti o n . A cc o rd in g ly, th is C o u rt af firm s C as tan ed a- M elch o r’s c o n v ic tio n s f

o rh a rb o r in g ille g a l a lie n s a n d f o rc o n s p ir a c y to h a rb o rille g a l a lie n s . I V . C on c l u s i on In concl usi on , C as t aneda-M el chor has notdem on stra t ed thatthe di stri ct c o u rt’s in s tru c tio n s to th e ju ry c o n s tru c tiv e lya m e n d e d th e in d ic tm e n t in h is c a s e .7

N orha s he de m ons tr a t e d tha taf a t a l va r i a nc e e xi s t s i n hi s c a s e . T he r e f or e , the C o u rt A F F I R MS hi s c onvi c t i on.