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. FR ANC ISC O B ARR IOS-SIGUENZA, AKA Franc isc o B arrios-Sique nz a , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10110

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-01472-DC B
B GM -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

12, 2014 B e rke le y , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, FISHER , a nd B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s. Fra nc isc o B arrios-Sigue nz a (“ B arrios” ) a

ppe a l s from

his c o n vic tion following a

jury tria l for a ssa

ult on a fe de ra l offic e r in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 111(a )(1) and ille ga lly e n te ring the Unite d State s in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1325, 

# FIL ED
APR 09 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.and from

the 18-m onth se nte nc e im pose d the re a fte r. W e va c a te B arrios’
c onvic tion for a ssa

ult on a fe de ra l offic e r. 1 (1) B arrios c onte nds tha t a jury instruc tion re ga

rding thee le m e nts of § 111(a )(1) c onstruc tive ly am e nde d the indic tm e n t to a llow a c onvic tion for

“ m ak[ing] a

thre a t c ouple d w i th a

n a p pa re nt a bility to inflic t injury ,” whic h wa s not c ha rge d. As B a

rrios obje c te d to the instruc tion a t tria l with suffic i e nt spe c ific ity

to put thegove rnm e nt a

nd the distric t c ourt on notic e of the ba sis for his obje c tion, Unite d State

s v . Pine da-Dov a l , 614 F.3d 1019, 1025–26 (9th C i r. 2010),
we re vie wthis a

rgum e nt de novo, Unite d State s v . Lazare nk

o , 564 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2009). The indic tm e nt a lle ge d tha t B arrios “ did inte ntiona l ly an d forc ibly a ssa ult Unite d State s B orde r Pa trol Age nt M ic ha e l [C ook] , . . . by hitting Agent C

ook in the m outh , thus m aking phy sic a l c onta c t with Age nt C o ok. . . .” The c ha lle nge d jury instruc tion provide d: “ [t] he re is a forc ible a ssa ult whe n one pe rson inte ntiona lly

strike s a nothe r, or willfully

atte m pts to inflic t injury

on a nothe r, or
m ake s a thre a t c o uple d with a

n a ppa re nt a bility to inflic t injury on a

n othe r whic h
c a use s a re a sona ble a ppre he nsion of im

m e d iate bodily ha

rm . ”

1 In a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, we

re je c t the gove rnm e n t’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t we should a ffirm

be c a use B arrios ha s be e n de porte d.

2B e c a

use the indic t

m e nt a lle ge d tha

t B arrios “ forc ibly

a ssa ult[e d] ” Age nt C ook “ by hitting [him] in the

mouth ,” he wa s c ha

rge d with thefirst ty

pe of forc ible
a ssa ult only , “ strik[ing] anothe r,” not “ a tte m p t[ing] ” or “ m ak[ing] a thre a t” to do so. Although “ forc i ble a ssa ult” would in other c onte xts inc lude thre a ts a nd
a tte m pts, onc e the indic tm e nt spe c i fie d a pa rtic ula r ty pe of “ a ssa

ult” — “ b y hitting . . . in them outh,” whic h is ne c e ssa rily “ strik[ing] anothe r” — the distric t c o urt
wa s re quire d to limi t the jury instruc tion a c c ordingly
. M ore ove r, the re is a

c onstruc tion of the prove n fa c ts tha t c ould support finding a thre a t, a lthough a

thre a t wa s ne ithe r a l le ge d nor a rgue d. The jury

c ould have c o nc lude d

tha t B arrios did not hit Age

nt C ook with a roc k (or the re wa s not proof be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t he did), but tha

t a fte r B a rrios fe ll, he rose in a thre a te ning fa shion, a s Age nt C ook te stifie d . This c onstruc tion is not unde rm ine d by the instruc tion's re quire m e nt tha t the jury find “ the de fe nda

n t m a de phy sic a l
c onta c t,” be c a

use B arrios him se lf te stifie d tha t he instinc t ive ly

ra ise d his he a d a s he wa s fa lling a

nd “ fe lt a n im pa c t.” The jury

c ould ha ve re a sona

b ly infe rre d tha

t the i m p a c t wa s with Age nt C ook’ s lip. As the instruc tion a l lowe d the jury to c o nvic t B arrios for “ m ak[ing] a thre a t[,] ” “ it c annot be sa id with c e rta inty tha t” he “ wa s c onvic te d sole ly on the
c ha rge m a de in the indic tm e nt the grand jury re turne d.” Stirone

v . U. S. , 361 U.S. 3212, 217 (1960). As “ a c onstruc tive am e n dm e nt re quire s re ve rsa l ,” we va c a te B arrios’ c onvic tion for a ssa ulting a fe de ra l offic e r. Unite d

State s v . Hartz , 458 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th C ir. 2006). (2) Additiona lly , the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d in fa iling to instruct the jury tha t the “ m ake s a

thre a t ” ve rsion of forc ible a ssa ult “ re quire [s] a

finding tha

t [B arrios] inte ntionally ” thre a te ne d Age nt C ook. Unite d State s v . Ac osta-Sie rra , 690 F.3d 1111, 1123 (9th C ir. 2012) (e m pha sis a dde d ), c e rt. de n ie d , 133 S. C t. 1298 (2013). Thegove rnm e nt c onc e de s a s m uc h. This e rror pre

judic e d B arrios’ substa

ntia l rights. Se e Unite d State s v . Gonzale z-Aparic io , 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th C ir. 2011) (unde r pla i n e rror re vie w,
re lie f is not wa

rra nte d unle ss the e rror a ffe c te d the de fe nda nt’ s substa

ntia l rights). Although there wa s no dire c t e vide nc e tha t B arrios thre a te ne d Age nt C ook, the jury a ske d for a de finition of “m ake s a

thre a t .” As the distric t

c ourt a c knowle dge d, the j ury ’ s que stion sugge ste d tha t it m ay have c onvic te d B arrios on theba s is of the

“ m ake s a thre a t” ve rsion of forc ible a ssa ult. M ore ove r, a s e xpla ine d a bove , the jury c ould ha ve c onvic te d B arrios for “ m ak[ing] a thre a t” e ve n if it be lie ve d he did not inte nd to do so. The

jury c ould ha

v e c onc lude d tha

t whe n B arrios atte m

pte d to sta nd up a fte r fa lling to the

ground, Age nt C o ok re a sona bly fe lt thre a te ne d by B arrios’ a c tions, e ve n though B arrios ha d no inte nt to c om m unic a te a thre a t. 4This pre j u dic e wa s not c ure d by

the distric t c ourt’ s a

nswe r to the jury que stion de fining “ m ake s a thre a t” a s “ [a ] c om

m unic a te d inte nt to inflic t bodily ha rm on a nothe r.” One c an c o m

m unic ate an inte nt to inflic t bodily ha rm without inte nding to do so, a s the e xam ple just give n illustra

te s . Nor did theprose c utor’ s sta te m e nts in c losing a de quate l y ide ntify the m e ns re a

re quire d for a c onvic t ion ba se d on thre a ts. For this re a son a s we ll, the re fore , B arrios’ c onvic tion on C ount 3
m ust be va c a te d. (3) W e a ffirm

the c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e in a ll othe r re ga rds. The distric t c o urt did not e rr in de ny ing the m otion to dism i ss on the ba sis of Brady

v . Mary l and , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) a nd Giglio v . Unite d State

s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972), for fa ilure to inve s tiga

t e and tim e ly

disc lose inform at ion re lating to missing witne s se s. The re is no e vide nc e tha t the gove rnm e nt a c te d in ba d fa ith or withhe ld
m a te ria l e vide nc e favora

ble to the de fe nse . Se e Unite d State s v . Le al-De l

C arme n , 697 F.3d 964, 969 (9th C ir. 2012). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt’ s offe r to c ontinue the t ria l to a llow the de fe nse to obta in a n d de ve lop suc h e vide nc e would ha ve
c ure d a ny suc h viola

tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . Game z-Orduno , 235 F.3d 453, 461–62 (9th C ir. 2000). C osts on a

ppe a l a re awarde d to B arrios. V ACAT E D in par t, AFFIRM E D in par t, AND RE M ANDE D . 5