N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v.
M IGUEL ASC ENC IO GAR C IA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10398

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00537-VC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Vinc e C hha

bria , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 16, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd SESSIONS, * * Distric t Judge
. M igue l Asc e n c io Ga

rc ia (“ Asc e nc io” ) a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1326 of be ing a

re m ove d a lie n found in the Unite d State s without the c onse nt of



# FIL ED
SEP 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion.the A ttorne y Ge ne ra l. He argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in de ny ing his motion to dismiss theindic tm e nt a nd in pre c luding thede fe nse of e ntra pm e nt by e stoppe l. W e a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Asc e nc io’ s re q ue st for a jury instruc tion on e ntra

pm e nt by e stoppe l. A de fe nda nt a tte m pting to raise the de fe nse of e ntra pm e nt by e stoppe l a g a inst a

fe de ra l sta

tute m ust ha ve re a sona

bly re lie d on
a fe d e ra l a ge nt’ s m ista

ke n a dvic e . Unite d State

s v . C ollins , 61 F.3d 1379, 1385 (9th C ir. 1995). Tha

t fe de ra l offic ia l m

ust a ffirm at ive ly re pre s e nt tha t the prosc ribe d c onduc t is in fa c t pe rm issible
. Unite d State s v . Ramire

z-Vale nc ia , 202 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th C ir. 2000) (pe r c uriam ). Asc e n c i o re lie d on the sta

te m e nt of
a state judge , not a

fe de ra l offic ia l. M ore ove r, tha

t sta te judge did not a ffirm ative ly te ll Asc e nc io tha

t he c ould le ga lly re m a in in theUnite d State s; she only instruc te d him

to re port to the probat ion offic e . Our c a se la w is c le ar tha

t onc e a re m ove d a lie n volunta

rily
re e n te rs the Unite d State s , he or she m ay be “ found in” the c ountry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326 e v e n whe n the ir c ontinue d pre se nc e in the Unite d State s is no longe r volunta

ry (for e xam

ple , whe n the a lie n is “ found in” the c ountry while in sta te c u stody ). Se e Unite d State s v . Salazar-Roble

s , 207 F.3d 648, 650 (9th C ir. 2000); U nite d State

s v . Ortiz-Ville

gas , 49 F.3d 1435, 1437-38 (9th C ir. 1995). So
2the fa c t tha

t he wa s at the probation offic e be c a use he wa s orde re d to be the re doe s not pre c lude a

“ found in”finding. 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Asc e nc io’ s m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt for outra ge o us gove rnm e nt c onduc t . To rise to the le ve l of outra ge ous gove rnm e nt c onduc t , sta

t e a c tion m

ust be “ so grossly

shoc king a

nd so outra ge ous
a s to viola

te the unive rsa l se nse of justic e .” U nite d State

s v . Holle r , 411 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l c ita tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d). The re is no e v i de nc e in the re c o rd e sta blishing a polic y in the Sonom a

C ounty Probation Offic e whe re in proba tion offic e rs a

re to re fra in from

re porting undoc um e nte d a lie ns to theIm m igrat ion a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e nt a ge nc y of the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity . Eve n if suc h a polic y e xiste d, the re is no
m isc o nduc t, m

uc h le ss outra g e ous c onduc t, whe re a sta te la we n forc e m e nt offic e r
c oope rat e s with a fe de ra l a ge nc y to e nforc e fe de ra l im

m igration la

w by re porting a viola tion to fe de ra l offic e rs. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1357(g)(10)(A); Arizona v . Unite d State s , 132 S. C t. 2492, 2508 (2012). 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Asc e nc io’ s m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt on theground tha t the unde rly ing orde r of re m ova l wa s inva lid. Asc e nc io ha s not de m onstra te d tha t his wa ive rs of his right to c ounse l and right to
a ppe a l at his re m ova l he arings we re involunta ry . The Im

m igration Judge s (“ IJ” ) at
3Asc e nc io’ s re m ova l he a rings discusse d Asc e nc io’ s right to c ounse l with him at le ngth a nd re pe ate dly

offe re d him

m ore tim e to obta in c ounse l . Asc e nc io
c onsulte d se ve ra l attorne y s re ga rding his c a se , but e le c te d not to re t a in c ounse l. 1 Furthe r, the IJ at

Asc e nc io’ s fina l re m ova l he aring e xpre ssly a dvise d Asc e nc io of his right to a

ppe a l the re m ova l orde r. Asc e nc io e l e c te d to a c c e pt the orde r and not to a p pe a l. AFFIRM E D.

1 Although Asc e nc io c onte nds tha t a nxie ty re ga rding his m e d ic a l c o ndition, and la c k of a c c e ss to a de quate m e dic at ion in jai l, ove rpowe re d his fre e will a t his re m ova l he arings, tha

t c onte ntion is not supporte d by the re c ord. Afte r Asc e nc io ra ise d the issue of his m e d ic a l tre atm e nt in thefirst of thre e re m ova l he arings, the IJ instruc te d a

re pre se ntative from the De p artm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity

to e nsure that Asc e nc io re c e ive d a de quate m e dic a l tre atm e nt whileinc a rc e rate d a nd to prote c t his right to priva

c y . In his fina l re m ova l he aring two we e ks la te r, the IJ re vie we d Asc e nc io’ s m e dic a l history and de m e anor, a

nd found him

c om pe te nt. Whe n the IJ inquire d a s to Asc e nc io’ s m e nta l a nd e m o tiona l sta

te on the da

y of the he aring, Asc e nc io sta

te d tha t while he wa s “ a

bit ne rvous,” he wa s pre pa re d for the he aring a nd c a pa ble of a rguing his c a se . 4