NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff
- Appellee,
v. JHOANTAN VILMAR BERNAL
SANCHEZ, Defendant
- Appellant. No. 21
- 50276 D.C. No. 3:20
- mj

- 20169
- JLB
- AJB
- 1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 15, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge CHRISTEN. Jhoantan Bernal
- Sanchez appeals the district court ’s denial of his appeal from his misdemeanor c onviction for attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 , following a bench trial before a magistrate judge . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we conditionally vacate and remand.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36
- 3. 

# FILED
NOV 1 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

1
. The magistrate judge abused its discretion by denying discovery under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) as to Agent Monroy’s “I’m 10
- 15” Facebook activity , and the district court erred by affirming without ordering that the magistrate judge examine the material in camera to determine whether there was any prejudice. To succeed on a Brady claim, Bernal
- Sanchez must show that : “(1) the evidence at issue was favorable to him, either because it was exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) that he was prejudiced.” United States v . Bruce , 984 F.3d 884, 894

– 95 (9th Cir. 2021). The magistrate judge concluded that the requested information was immaterial and undiscoverable, without requiring the government to review the information or provide it for in camera review
. Although it is undisputed that the government possessed information about the 10,000 open investigations, i t is also undisputed that the government did not search for or produce Agent Monroy’s “I’m 10
- 15” activity and simply relied on the fact that no disciplinary action related to the Facebook group was in his person nel file. The government and the magistrate judge also erroneously relied upon Agent Monroy’s representation that he did not participate in the group . N othing in the record establishes that the investigation s into all Border Patrol agents ’ Facebook group activities had been completed or that all “I’m 10
- 15” disciplinary actions had been recorded in each3

agent’s files. Further, d ue to the racist, violent, and degrading nature of the comments on the “I’m 10
- 15” group pages and because Agent Monroy denied posting, liking, or commenting on the group, any activity by Agent Monroy would have impeached Monroy’s statement that he had not contributed to the group pages . See Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). However , it is now impossible for us to determine whether the potential discovery undermine s our confidence in the outcome or show s a reasonable probability of a different result
. See United States v . Doe , 705 F.3d 1134, 1152

– 53 (9th Cir. 2013). The government ’s argument that Agent Krawcion’s testimony alone was sufficient to prove the elements of Bernal
- Sanchez’s conviction is unavailing , given that the government did call Agent Monroy to testify, and the magistrate judge relied on some of that testimony in its findings
. Under these circumstances , we follow the procedures set forth by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 (1987), and “ vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand to the district court ” for an in camera review of any Agent Monroy “I’m 10
- 15” materials in the government’s possession to determine whether the Facebook “I’m 10
- 15” pages “contain probative, relevant, and material information” that “could have affected the outcome of the trial
. ” United States v. Alvarez , 358 F.3d 1194, 1209 (9th Cir. 2004). If the pages contain material information, the district court shall “release the appropriate information to4

the defense and order a new trial , ” but if the district court “ determines that a new trial is not warranted, the court shall reinstate the judgment of conviction. ” Id. ; see also Doe , 705 F.3d at 1152. 2. The district court also erred by affirming the admission of employment documents secured through the government’s misuse of a Rule 17(a) subpoena. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(a) sets forth the procedure for the issuance of subpoenas commanding attendance and testimony at court proceedin gs. By contrast, Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) governs the production of documents and objects “in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence.” But the court must approve the issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena and , upon motion, the court may quash or modify such subpoena. Here, the government obtained a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(a) that commanded the custodian of records for Bernal
- Sanchez’s employer, 20/20 Plumbing & Heating, to appear at his trial with documents to be produced at that proceeding. The specific document s sought were listed on Attachment A. The items listed on Attachment A were all of Bernal
- Sanchez’s employment records for the past six years and eight months. And Attachment A informed the employer that it could “provide the information by e
- mail” direc tly to the U.S. Attorney’s office. However, when the agents served the subpoena, they simply collected hard copies of the subpoenaed records at that time.5

The government thus transformed a Rule 17(a) subpoena into a Rule 17(c) subpoena without the court’s approval and thereby deprived Bernal
- Sanchez of his right to move to quash or modify the patently overbroad subpoena under Rule 17(c)(2). Therefore, the g overnment obtained these records in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 17. This conduct also violated the district’s local rule, S.D. Cal. Crim. R. 17.1(b), which expressly prohibits parties in a criminal case from using a subpoena to require production of doc uments at a date or time other than the proceedings at which the documents will be introduced, “unless the Court has entered an order under Rule 17(c). . . authorizing the issuance of such subpoena.” The local rules further require service of a Rule 17(c) subpoena on all parties who may want to object “at least seventy

- two hours (72) prior to the return date.” The government abused its subpoena power, misled 20/20 Plumbing & Heating about its obligations, and then used these documents to threaten Bernal
Sanchez with impeachment and potential additional charges, should he decide to testify. The district court should have reversed the magistrate judge’s denial of Bernal
- Sanchez’s subsequent motion to quash. Typically, we must assess whether such error “materially affect[ed] the verdict,” United States v. Gonzalez

- Flores , 418 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005). However, because we are remanding this case to the district court to consider the materiality and potential prejudice of the “I’m 10
- 15” materials, we also instruct6

the district court to consider in the first instance whether admission of the improper ly subpoena ed materials , either alone or in combination with the omission of the “I’m 10
- 15” materials , prejudiced Bernal

- Sanchez. In the future, the government should strictly comply with Rule 17 and the district’s local rules when seeking pretrial discovery in a criminal case. 3. The district court did not err in declining to unseal the government’s sealed applications for an order regarding disclosure or non
- disclosure
. Two of the applications pertain to individuals who did not ultimately testify at trial, and thus the government had no obligation to produce their personnel files
. United States v. Henthorn , 931 F.2d 29, 31 (9th Cir. 1991) . The third application contains information the government had already disclosed to Bernal
- Sanchez. Therefore,
a llowing the government’s applications to remain under seal did not prejudice Bernal
- Sanchez. 4. Bernal
- Sanchez’s argument that § 1325 violates the equal protection clause is foreclosed by United States v. Carrillo

- Lopez , 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. Bernal
- Sanchez’s conviction is conditionally VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this memorandum.USA v . J

hoantan Be rnal-Sanc h e

z , No. 21-50276 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a n d disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur with the m a

j ority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to re quire furthe r disc ove ry of Age n t M onroy ’ s a c tivitie s in the “ I’ m 10-15” Fa c e book group, a

nd a lso a gre e tha

t the c ourt e rre d

by a dm itting re c ords the Gove rnm e nt im

prope rly obta ine d via

a R ule 17(a ) subpoe na . B ut be c a u se ne ithe r
e rror pre judic e d B e rna l-Sanc h e z and the e vide nc e of his guilt wa s ove rwhe lm ing, I
re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the c ourt’ s de c ision to c onditiona lly va c at e B e rna lSa nc he z ’ s c onvic tion a

n d re m an d. The undispute d

fa c tua l c i rc um sta

nc e s surrounding B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s a rre s t
are d ispositive of the m a te ria lity and pre j udic e inquirie s , so I be gin with a de ta ile d
e xpla na tion of the c i rc um s ta

nc e s unde r whic h

he wa s a rre s te d. On Ja nua ry 17, 2020, a

t a pproxim a te ly

3:00 a
. m ., a

M a rine C orps sc o pe ope ra t or pa trolling the

Unite d State s/M e xic o borde r ne ar the Te c a te Port of Entry spotte d two pe ople sta

nding ne a r the borde r fe nc e . He announc e d on the B orde r Pa trol’ s ra dio c ha

nne l t ha t he ha d sighte d two pe o p le , the n ra dioe d a ga in to re port that the y we re running a

way . Age nts M o nroy

and Kra wc ion we re both on pa

trol that night. The y

he ard the sc ope ope ra tor’ s broa dc a s t a nd be ga n se arc hing for two pe ople . Age nt M onroy

told Age nt Kra

wc ion tha t he be lie ve d the two we re in a fe nc e d lot a

pproxim a te l y

one te nth of a m ile from the borde r. Age nt Kra wc ion 

# FIL ED
N OV 1 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R , CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1la te r te stifie d tha t he e nte re d t

he lot a nd found B e rna l-Sa nc he z and a nothe r m an ly ing on the ground in ta ll we e ds, fa c e up a nd bre a thing ha

rd. Kra wc ion que stione d why

B e rna l -Sa nc he z wa s the re , a n d B e rna l-Sa nc he z re plie d tha t he ha d just be e n kic k e d “ by

thre e guy s .” This re sponse wa s c urious be c a use the are a

wa s de se rte d a t 3:00 a .m . Age nt Kra wc ion a ga in a ske d why

B e rna l-Sa n c he z wa s the re , and B e rna l-San c he z sa i d he did not know. Age nt Kra wc i on pose d a

se rie s of que stions to B e rna l-Sanc he z a bout his im

m igration sta

tus, a n d B e rna l-Sa nc he z
answe re d tha t he wa s a M e xic a n c itiz e n without le g a l sta tus to e nte r the Unite d Sta t e s. He produc e d a

n e m ploy m e nt a uthoriz a tion c ard but it sa id “ Not va lid for
re e n try into the U.S.” Age nt Kra

wc ion ne xt spoke to B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s c om pa nion, a lso found ly ing on the ground, a

nd he a d m itte d tha t he ha d jum

pe d ove r the fe nc e with B e rna l-Sanc he z . In Age nt Kra wc ion’ s writte n re port a

nd subse que nt tria l te stim ony , he re c ounte d tha t B e rna l-Sa nc he z he ard his c om pa n i on’ s re sponse and inte rje c te d, “

No, I didn’ t . I didn’ t jum p the fe nc e . I’ m just going to work.” Age nt Kra wc ion a ske d how B e rna l -Sanc he z would ge t to work “ a t 3:00 in the m orning, in
a c lose d-off c ity , ” and B e rna l -Sa nc he z re plie d tha t he ha d a truc k in the lot. B ut B e rna l-Sanc he z wa s una

ble to ide ntify

a truc k tha t be longe d

to him , or to ide ntify wha t lot thetruc k wa s in, a nd he ha d no c ar ke y s. Age nt Kra w c ion a rre ste d both
m e n a nd the n inspe c te d the are a . He disc ove re d a rope tie d to a

tre e on the M e xic o 2side of the borde r, da ngling ove r the fe nc e an d into theUnite d State s. Age nt Kra wc ion a lso te stifie d

tha t he obse rve d

two se ts of footprints on e ithe r side of the borde r fe nc e le a ding to a

nd from the rope . The Gove rnm e nt c ha

rge d B e rna l-Sa nc he z with a tte m pte d ille ga l e ntry , a viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1325(a )(1). This sta tute prohibits a

pe rson without la

wful sta tus from “ e nte r[ing] or a tte m

pt[ing] to e nte r the Unite d State s a t a ny tim e or pla c e othe r tha

n a s de signa

te d by im m igration offic e rs.” In his te stim ony a t B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s be nc h tria l, Age nt Kra wc ion de sc ribe d how a

nd whe re B e rna lSa nc he z and his c om

pa nion we re arre ste d, tha

t no busine sse s in the are a we re ope n
a t 3:00 a .m ., a

nd tha t the Te c ate Port of Entry

did not ope n until 5:00 a .m . The Gove rnm e nt a lso introduc e d an a pplic a tion tha

t B e rna l -Sa nc he z ha d fille d out in M arc h 2020 “unde r pe n a lty of pe rjury ” to re ne w his e m ploy m e nt a uthoriz a tion. On it, B e rna l-Sanc h e z a dm i tte d tha t he ha d la s t a

rrive d in the Unite d

Sta te s on Ja nua ry 17, 2020, the

da te Age nt Kra

wc ion a rre ste d him
. Sne a king through a

n ope n port of e ntry

is a viola tion of 8 U.S.C
. § 1325(a )(2). This offe nse c a n be c om m itte d, for e xam

ple , by a pe rson se c re te d in the t runk of a c ar pa ssing through a

port of e ntry
. Unite d

State s v . C orrale s -Vazque z , 931 F.3d 944, 949 (9th C i r. 2019). The offe nse tha t B e rna lSa nc he z wa s c ha

rge d with viola

ting, § 1325(a

)(1), c rim ina l iz e s e nte ring the
c ountry outside offic i a l ports of e ntry
. Se e id. a t 950, 954 (holding tha t to be 3c onvic te d unde r § 1325(a )(2) “ the a l ie n’ s c onduc t m ust oc c ur at a de

s ignate d port of e n try that is ope n for inspe c tion and e x amination ,” while to be c onvic te d unde r § 1325(a )(1) the a lie n m

ust “ e n te r or a tte m

p t to e nte r outside

of an ope n port of
e ntry ” (e m

p ha sis a d de d )). At tria l, the de fe n se did not de ny tha t B e rna l-Sa nc he z ha d c rosse d the borde r— nor c ould it, given B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s a dm ission on the work a uthoriz a tion form tha t he ha d la st e nte re d the Unite d State s on Ja nua ry 17, 2020. The

de fe nse
wa s e ffe c tive ly

lim i te d to a

rguing tha

t the re wa s re a sona

ble doubt tha

t B e rna lSa nc he z m i ght ha

v e pa sse d through the

port of e ntry

without be ing de te c te d on Ja nua ry 17, 2020, tha

t he did so som e tim e be twe e n m i dnight a nd 3:00 a .m ., a

nd that be c a u se the Gove rnm e nt did not show whe n the Te c a te port c lose d, it c ould have be e n ope n whe n B e rna l-Sanc he z pa sse d through it. The tria l c ourt judge c onside re d the e vide nc e an d both pa rtie s’ argum e nts. Ac knowle dging the strong e vide nc e tha t B e rna l-Sa nc he z and his c om pa nion jum pe d the fe nc e , a

nd like ly re c ogniz ing tha

t the de fe nse the ory would ha ve
re quire d the port to be ope n be t we e n m idnight a

nd 2:59 a
. m ., but not ope n be twe e n 3:00 a .m . a

nd 5:00 a .m ., the tria l c ourt issue d a de ta ile d ora l ruling tha

t B e rna lSa nc he z wa s guilty

of viola t ing 8 U.S.C . § 1325(a )(1). I. B rady Infor m ation

4B e rna l-Sanc he z first a rgue s tha t the Gove rnm e nt viola

t e d the disc ove ry obliga tions im p ose d by B rady b e c a

use it fa ile d to se arc h pa ge s sa v e d from “ I’ m 10-15,” a now-ina c tive Fa c e book group tha t wa s form e rly

use d by som e B orde r Pa trol a ge nts. B e rna l -Sa nc he z argue s the Gove rnm e nt wa s obliga te d to look for
e vide nc e tha

t Age nt M onroy

a uthore d or re sponde d to ra c ist m e ssa ge s poste d on the Fa c e book pa g e be c a

u s e if suc h e vide n c e e xiste d, it c ould ha ve be e n use d to im pe a c h Age nt M onroy ’ s te stim ony . The gove rnm e n t is re quire d to produc e to the de fe nse “ e vide nc e fa vora ble to
an a c c u se d,” Brady

v . Mary land , 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), tha t is “ known to . . . othe rs a c t ing on the gove rnm e nt’ s be ha lf,” K y le s v . W hitle y , 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). Tha

t sa i d, the gove rnm e nt viola te s Brady only whe n it fa i ls to produc e
suc h e v ide nc e tha

t is “ m a te ria l.” Baile

y v . Rae , 339 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th C ir. 2003). “ [E] vide nc e im

p e a c h i ng a

n e y e witne ss m ay

not be m ate ria l if the Sta te ’ s othe r e vide nc e is strong e n o ugh to susta in c onfide n c e in the ve rdic t.” S mith v

. C ain , 565 U.S. 73, 76 (2012). “ [T] he re is ne ve r a re a l ‘ Brady

viola tion’ unle ss the nondisc losure wa s so se rious tha t the re is a re a sona

ble proba b ility tha t the suppre sse d e vide nc e would ha ve produc e d a

diffe re nt ve rdic t.” Stric k le r v . Gre e ne , 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999). The c ourt orde re d the Gove rnm e nt to disc lose tha t Age nt M onroy ha d be e n a
m e m b e r of the “ I’ m

10-15” Fa c e book group for se ve ra l y e a rs, but did not re quire 5the G ove rnm e nt to se arc h the sa ve d Fa c e book re c ords for a c tivity by Age nt M onroy . I a gre e with m

y c olle a gue s tha

t the c ourt e rre d

by de c lining to order the Gove rnm e nt to se arc h for e vide nc e of Age nt M onroy ’ s pa rtic ipation in the

group. Unite d State s v . Bruc e , 984 F.3d 884, 895–98 (9th C ir. 2021) (disc ussing gove rnm e nt’ s burde n of disc l osing pote ntia lly e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e tha

t c ould support de fe nse the ory ). I do not a gre e tha t it is im possible to de te rm ine whe the r the p ote ntia l e vide nc e unde rm ine s our c onfide nc e in the outc o m e of B e rna lSa nc he z ’ s tria l, or tha

t the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t the re sult of the tria l would ha ve diffe re d. No pa rt of the Gove rnm e nt’ s c a s e a ga inst B e rna l-Sa nc he z de pe nde d on Age nt M onroy ’ s te stim ony . S e e Stric k le r , 527 U.S. a

t 291 (holding tha

t the re m ust be a re a sona

b le proba bility of a diffe re nt re sult a fte r “ a

tota l, or just a

substa ntia l, disc ount” of the im

p e a c he d witne ss’ s te stim ony ). Age n t Kra wc ion te stifie d tha

t

“ we he ard one of the M arine C orps sc ope ope ra tors put out a c a ll tha t he sa w two individua ls sta

n ding ne xt to the fe nc e , a nd the n the y

we re running a

way .” Age nt Kra wc ion a lso te stifie d

tha t, m om e nts la

t e r, he found B e rna l-Sa nc he z and a n othe r
m an ly ing in ta ll gra ss in the l ot. Age nt Kra wc ion re c ounte d B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s
e xpla na tions for his pre s e nc e in the lot— whic h did not m a ke se nse
— and de sc ribe d for the tria l c o urt tha

t he found a

rope still da

ngling ove r the borde r fe nc e and two
se ts of footprints le a ding from it. It wa s Age nt Kra wc ion, not Age nt M onroy , who 6que stione d the two m e n a nd te s tifie d to B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s c om pa nion’ s a dm ission that the y ha d just c lim

be d ove r the fe nc e . In short, Age nt M onroy ’ s te stim ony wa s not ne e de d to e sta

blish a ny of the e le m e nts of the c ha rge d offe nse . The Gove rnm e nt’ s othe r e vide nc e a m ply supporte d the c ourt’ s judgm e nt. The c a se s the m a

jority re lie s upon do not support B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s
argum e nt tha

t re m and is wa

rrante d. In Doe , the de fe nda nt pla nne d to a rgue tha t the FB I e ithe r e ntra

p pe d him or sa nc tione d his a c t ivitie s a s a c o nfide ntia l inform an t. Unite d State

s v . Doe , 705 F.3d 1134, 1150 (9th C i r. 2013). Give n tha t de fe nse the ory , we he ld tha t the gove rnm e nt viola

te d B rady by fa iling to produc e
re c o rds showing the

de fe nda nt’ s c onta c ts with a

nd provision of inform

a tion to the FB I be c a use the withhe ld e v ide nc e “ would undoubte dly have be e n

he lpful to his de fe nse .” Id. a t 1151. And in Muniz-J a q ue z , undisc lose d a

udiota pe s c ould ha

ve be e n “ c ruc i a l” to c ross-e xam ine the gove rnm e nt’ s only witne ss who m i ght ha

ve obse rve d the de fe nda

n t c rossing theborde r. Unite d State s v . Muniz-J

aque z , 718 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th C ir. 2013). B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s c a se is not c om pa ra ble to the se
c a se s be c a

use Age nt M onroy wa s not the sole e y e witne ss, or e ve n a ne c e ssa ry witne s s, at B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s tria l. B e c a use Age nt Kra

wc i on’ s te stim ony inde pe nde ntly

prove d e a c h e le m e nt of the Gove rnm e nt’ s c a se , e vide nc e im pe a c h ing Age nt M onroy ’ s c re dibility would not ha

ve c ha nge d the outc om e of

7B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s be nc h tria l. The fa ilure to produc e non-mate rial im pe a c hm e nt
e vide nc e doe s not re quire re m and. Se e Stric k l e r , 527 U.S. a

t 296. II. Subpoe na E r r or I a gre e tha

t the Gove rnm e nt m isuse d Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 17(a ) to obta in B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s e m p loy m e nt re c ords. The Gove rnm e nt la te r introduc e d the re c ords, whic h note d tha t B e rna l-Sa nc he z wa s not working be twe e n Ja n ua ry 5
and Fe brua

ry 3 due to his m othe r’ s de a th, to show tha t B e rna l-Sa nc he z wa s not working on the

da y of his a rre st, a nd tha t he lie d whe n he told B orde r Pa t rol tha t he
wa s on his wa

y to work. W he n e vide nc e i s e rrone ously a dm itte d, the be ne fitte d pa rty m ust show it is

“ m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t the [trie r of fa c t ] would ha ve re a c he d the sa

m e
ve rdic t” e ve n if the e v i de nc e ha d not be e n a dm itte d. O bre y v . J ohnson , 400 F.3d 691, 701 (9th C ir. 2005). The risk tha t a judge ’ s ve rdic t in a

be nc h tria l will be

“ a ffe c te d unfa i rly

and substa

ntia lly by the a dm ission of [im

prope r] e vide nc e is fa

r le ss tha n in a jury tria l.” Se e EEOC

v . Farme r Bros. C

o. , 31 F.3d 891, 898 (9th C ir. 1994). He re , the Gove rnm e nt e a sily m e t its burde n to show tha t the introduc tion of B e rna l-San c he z ’ s e m ploy m e nt re c ords would not ha ve a ffe c te d the outc om e of the tria l. The tria l c ourt re fe rre d to the e m p loy m e nt re c ords only onc e in its ora l ruling, noting tha

t the re c ords, toge the r with B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s inc onsiste n t

8sta

te m e nts to Age nt Kra

wc ion a nd B e rna l -Sa nc he z ’ s ina

b ility to produc e c ar ke y s, prove d tha t he fa lse ly

told B orde r Pa trol tha

t he wa s ne ar the borde r with his truc k on Ja nua ry 17th be c a

use he wa s on the wa

y to work. 1 The issue a t tria l wa s not whe the r B e rna l -Sa n c he z wa s working ne ar the borde r. He wa s c ha rge d with viola ting 8 U.S.C . § 1325(a )(1), a nd to prove tha

t c rim e , the Gove rnm e nt wa s
re quire d to show tha

t B e rna l-Sanc he z la c k e d la wful im m igration sta

tus a nd tha t he ha d e nte re d the Unite d State s outside of a de signa te d port of e ntry
. U

nite d State

s
v . Aldana , 878 F.3d 877, 882 (9th C ir. 2017). The Gove rnm e n t’ s e vide nc e
re soundingly

e sta blishe d B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s guilt. B e rna l-Sanc he z a dm i tte d on his e m p loy m e nt a uthoriz a tion a

pplic a tion tha

t he ha d e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on Ja nua ry 17, 2020. This c onc e ssion le ft the de fe nse to a

rgue a t tria l tha

t B e rna l -Sa nc he z ha d som e how pa sse d unnotic e d through the Te c a te Port of Entry som e tim e a fte r m idnight on the 17th, a nd tha t he ha d re m a ine d hidde n in the lot ne ar the borde r until he wa s found a t 3:00 a .m . Ac c e pting this the ory

would ha ve re quire d

the tria l c ourt to ove rlook c o m pe lling
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e tha

t B e rna l-Sa nc he z ha d e n te re d e xa c tly a s his c om

pa nion ha d a dm itte d: by

using therope tha

t offic e rs found ha

nging ove r the borde r fe nc e .

1 The distric t c o urt found no pre judic e be c a

use it m ista

ke nly unde rstood tha

t the re pre se ntative from

B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s e m

ploy e r ha d brought a ll the subpoe na e d e m ploy m e nt re c ords with he r to tria l. The tria l c ourt wa s a w are that the re pre se ntative did not bring a ll pre viously

produc e d doc u m e n ts to tria l. 9Unsurprisingly , the c ourt c onc lude d tha t the Gove rnm e nt ha d prove d its c a se . In doing so, the

tria l c ourt spe c ifie d tha

t it re a c he d this c onc lusion “ e ve n without
re fe re n c e to” “ the portion of the doc um e ntation from

the e m ploy m e nt re c ords tha

t indic a te s tha

t the de fe nda

n t wa s [a bse nt from

work] due to his m om ’ s pa ssing.” W e hav e sa id tha

t whe n a c o urt e xpre ssly

sta te s tha t im prope r e vide nc e did not
a ffe c t its de c ision, it is proba ble tha t the e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss. Se e Farme r Bros. , 31 F.3d at 898. He re , give n the tria l c ourt’ s e xplic it sta te m e nt tha

t it re lie d on othe r
e vide nc e , re m and is not wa rra n te d. The Gove rnm e nt c om

pounde d its e rrone ous use of R

ule 17(a ) a

nd disre ga

rd of Loc a l C rim ina l R

ule 17.1(b) by

wa rning B e rna l-Sa nc he z tha t if he te stifie d, the Gove rnm e nt would im

pe a c h him

for an a lle ge dly

m isle a ding sta

te m e n t he m a de to the c ourt in c onne c tion with a n e arlie r re que st to c ontinue the tria l da te . The sta

te d
ne e d for the c ontinua

nc e wa s re fute d by

the e m ploy m e nt re c ords the Gove rnm e nt obta ine d with the R

ule 17(a ) subpoe n a . To a void undue de la

y , the c ourt disa llowe d this im

pe a c h m e nt e v ide nc e . B e rna l-Sa nc he z ne ve rthe le s s a rgue s tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by

this e xc lude d e vide nc e be c a use the Gove rnm e nt’ s sta te d inte nt to im

pe a c h him

with the e m

ploy m e n t re c ords dissua d e d him from te stify ing. In light of the

a dm ission B e rna l-Sanc he z m a de on the a pplic a tion to re ne w his
e m ploy m e nt a uthoriz at ion, I c an se e no re a listic like lihood tha t this is so. Ha

d B e rna l-Sanc he z te stifie d, he would ha ve be e n c onfronte d with the sta

te m e nt he 10m a de unde r pe na lty of pe rjury

on tha t a pplic a tion: tha

t he la st e nte re d the Unite d Sta t e s on Ja

nua ry 17, 2020. At tha

t point, the

Gove rnm e nt would ha

v e be e n fre e to
a sk how he ha d

e nte re d the c ountry

on tha t da te , whic h would ha

ve re quire d B e rna l-Sanc he z to a dm it to thec ha rge d offe nse (that

he ha d e nte re d outside a

port of e ntry ), or to a dm i t to a

nothe r offe nse (that

he ha d e nte re d uninspe c te d through a port of e ntry ), or to invokehis Fifth Am e ndm e nt privile ge . On this re c ord, the Gove rnm e nt’ s m isuse of R ule 17(a ) a

nd disre ga

rd of Loc a l C rim ina l R

ule 17.1(b)
ne ithe r inte rfe re d with B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s de c i sion to te stify nor a ffe c te d the ve rdic t. The m a jority c orre c tly c a lls out the

Gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to sa tisfy its Brady disc ove ry obliga tion a n d disre ga

rd for Loc a l C rim ina l R

ule 17.1(b). Ne ithe r e rror
warra n ts re m and give n the c om pe lling e vide nc e of B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s guilt. I the re fore join the m a

jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the Gove rnm e nt fa i le d to m e e t its disc ove ry obliga tions unde r Brady

and m isuse d R

ule 17(a ). I a l so join the
m a jority ’ s disposition of the c ha lle nge to the Gove rnm e nt’ s se a le d a pplic a tions for orde rs re ga

rding disc l osure , a

nd a gre e tha

t B e rna l-Sa nc he z ’ s e qua l prote c tion
argum e nt la c ks m e rit. B ut be c a use I disa g re e with the m a j ority ’ s Brady

m a te ria lity
ana ly sis a nd its de c i sion to re m and the pre judic e ana ly sis of the im

prope rly subpoe na e d e m

p loy m e nt re c ords, I re spe c tfully disse nt from the de c ision to
c onditiona lly

va c a te B e rna l-Sanc he z ’ s c onvic tion.

11