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 yc 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). 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. J ORGE M ARI SC AL, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50349 D . C . N o. 3: 11 -c r- 02 83 8-L A B -1 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 . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t6, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , S IL V E R M A N , an d N G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ol l ow i ng a bench tri al , A pp el l antJorge M ar i sc al (“ M ar i sc al ”) w as c o n v ic te d o f

v io la tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , w h ic h p r o h ib its a n a lie n f r o m ille g a lly r e e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rhe pr e vi ous l yl e f

tthe c ountryw hi l e a n or de rof



# FI LED AU G 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

re m ov al w as ou t st andi ng . O n app ea l , M ar i sc al ar gu es thatthe go vernm entfa i l ed to s u f f ic ie n tlyp r o v e h is p r io rp h y s ic a l d e p a rtu r e . W here a party on app ea l chal l enges the suff i ci encyof the evi dence, w e vi ew the e vi de nc e “ i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, ” a nd the n de t e rm i ne w hether “ anyr a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. Ca rra n za , 289 F . 3d 634, 641–42 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) . A ppe l l a ntr e l i e s he a vi l y on U ni ted Stat es v. A ri as-O rdon ez , 597 F . 3d 972, 97 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), w here w e hel d thati f the go vernm entse eks t o rel y on a no t i ce o f r e in s ta te m e n t to r e m o v e a n a lie n , th e d e f e n d a n t m u s t h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ityto c ha l l e nge the unde r l y i ng or de rof r e m ova l . H e r e , how e ve r , M a r i s c a l doe s not di sput e the val i di ty of the un derl yi ng 20 07 O rderof R em ov al . T here fore , w e nee d n o t d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e 2 0 1 0 N o tic e o f R e in s ta te m e n t w a s v a lid . S i m i l a r l y , M a r i s c a l doe s notdi s put e the va l i di tyof the 2010 W a rr a ntof R e m ova l , da t e d S e pt e m be r8, 2010, w hi c h c ont a i ns M a r i s c a l ’ s f i nge rpr i nt s a nd the s w o rn s ta te m e n t o f

a n im m ig r a tio n o f

f ic e rs ta tin g th a t h e r e m o v e d M a r is c a l to M e xi c o “ on f

oot ” tha tda y . T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yf ound tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t s u f

f ic ie n tlyp r o v e d M a r is c a l’s p h y s ic a l d e p a rtu r e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. See U

ni ted Stat es v. Zepeda-M art i nez , 470 F . 3d 909, 913 ( 9th C i r . 2006)3

( w a rr a n t o f

r e m o v a l “s u f

f ic ie n t alone t o s upportaf i ndi ng of r e m ova l be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt ” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t i ng U ni te d State s v . B ahe na- Carde nas , 411 F . 3d 1067, 1075 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( w a rr a ntof r e m ova l “ pr ovi de d s uf

f i c i e nt e v id e n c e o f

p h y s ic a l r e m o v a l” ) ) . AF F I RME D.