2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-11-2007 

# U SA v . M agloire P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2242

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M aglo ir e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1322. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1322NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 2242 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CA RTER M AG LOI RE,

A ppel l ant A pp eal from t he D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s,

D iv isio n o f

S t. C ro ix ( N o. 04- cr - 00142- 2) D i s t r i ctC our t : H on. A nne E. T hom ps on Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber4, 2006 B efor e: M cK E E , B A R R Y , and ST A PL E T O N C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 11, 2007

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. C a rt e r M a g lo ir e a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n ts o f c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . H e cl ai m s t he courterr ed i n fai l i ng t o gr anthi s m ot i on forr ecus al , thatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i ons , and thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve. Forthe r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr eci t e the fa ct s or2

pr ocedur al backgr ound of thi s cas e exc epti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef d isc u ss io n . H o w e v e r, sin c e M a g lo ire c h a llen g e s th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , w e w ill b e g i n o u rd i s c u s s i o n w i t h a b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f

th e t e s t i m o n y. D ur i ng t he tr i al , fourH ai t i ans t es t i fi ed: ( 1) theyw er e H ai t i an nat i onal s w i t hout pr operdocument at i on t o ent ert he U ni t ed St at es ; ( 2) theyw er e att empt i ng t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es t hr ough t he V i r gi n I s l ands and/ orthe cont i nent al U ni t ed St at es ; and ( 3) t hey p a id to b e tra n sp o rte d f ro m D o m in ica to th e V irg in Isla n d s. T h re e o f th e w itn e ss e s p a id $1, 000 t o boar d t he s hi p; one pai d $1, 200. T heytr avel ed byboatt o St . C r oi x fr om D om i ni ca, and no one a s ked them t o s how pr operdocument at i on t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es befor e oraft ert heyboar ded the boat . T heyl eftD om i ni ca a tni ghti n a s m al l boat thatt ook them t o t he l ar gerboatt hateventual l yr an agr ound i n St . C r oi x. T heyobs erved o n ly M a g lo ir e a n d c o -d e f e n d a n t L a v ille o p e ra tin g th e b o a t d u ri n g th e th re e -d a yv o y a g e . T w o w i tnes s es t es t i fi ed thatt heypai d t hei rm oneyt o t he boatow nerdi r ect l y , and thatt he ow nerknew t heyw er e H ai t i an nat i onal s . A notherw i t nes s t es t i fi ed thatthe boat ’ s ow ner to ld th e p a ss e n g e rs th a t M a g lo ire a n d L a v ill e w o u ld b e tak in g th e b o a t to th e V irg in Is l and s. T he evi dence al s o i ncl uded the depos i t i on t es t i m onyof fourC uban pas s enger s t hat w as verys i m i l art o t he H ai t i ans ’ t es t i m ony . T he C uban nat i onal s di d nothave a ny d o c u m e n tatio n a u th o riz in g th e ir e n tryin to th e U n ited S tate s. T h e yp a id a c o n tac t in D o m inica $ 3 , 0 0 0 to b e tran sp o rt ed to the U n it ed S tat es. T h at co n tact kn ew theyw ere3

C uban. T heys ai d t heyl eftD om i ni ca a r ound 1 or2 a. m . , and w er e t aken t o a l ar gerboat th a t tran sp o rte d th e m to th e V irg in Isla n d s. H o w e v e r, u n lik e th e H a iti a n s, th e C u b a n s d id n o t k n o w w h o o p e ra te d th e b o a t. D a v id L e v e rin g , a s p e c ial a g e n t at Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u sto m s E n f o rc e m e n t w ith exper i ence i nves t i gat i ng al i en s m uggl i ng i n the V i r gi n I s l ands , al s o t es t i fi ed. H e s t at ed th a t alie n sm u g g lin g o p e ra tio n s typ ica llyb e g in a t sta g in g lo c a tio n s lik e D o m in ica o r S t. M ar t i n, w her e al i ens payor gani zer s t o be t aken t o t he V i r gi n I s l ands . H e al s o t es t i fi ed that the b oat operat ors ar e i nv ari ablypaid for theirservices . T he j ur yacqui t t ed M agl oi r e of c ons pi r acyt o br i ng i n i l l egal al i ens , butconvi ct ed h im o f b ri n g ing ali en s into the U n it ed S tat es, an d d o ing so fo r fina n cial ga in. T h ere af ter, M a g lo ire f

iled a c o u n se led m o tio n f o r n e w trial p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 3 . H is ar gum ent s i ncl uded a c l ai m t hatJ udge G óm ez s houl d have r ecus ed hi m s el f bec aus e he had bee n D eputyC r i m i nal C hi ef i n t he O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe D i s tr i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands w hen M agl oi r e w as arr es t ed, and he r emai ned D eputyC hi ef dur i ng the ens ui ng i nves t i gat i on and i ndi ctm ent . M agl oi r e al s o chal l enged the s uffi ci ency of the evi dence . T her eaf t er , he fi l ed a pr o s e m ot i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) , ar gui ng i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l . At th e e n s u i n g s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , J u d g e Ann e E. T h o m p so n d en ied M ag loir e’s m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial an d ref u sed to ad d ress M ag loir e’s in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im s . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d .4 II. Sect i on 455( a) of Ti t l e 28 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode pr ovi des : “A nyj us t i ce, j udge, o r m a g istra te ju d g e o f

th e U n ited S tate s s h a ll d isq u a lifyh im se lf in a n yp ro c e e d in g in w hi ch hi s i m part i al i t ym i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ” 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . Sect i on 455( b) ( 3) r equi r es di s qual i fi cat i on “[w ] her e [the j udge] has s erved i n governm ent al em ploym ent and i n such capac i t ypart i ci pated as coun sel , adv i seror m at eri al w i t ness conce rni ng t he pr ocee di ng orexpr es s ed an opi ni on conce r ni ng the mer i t s of the part i cul ar ca se in co n tr o v ersy . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (b)(3 ). M a g lo ire f

irst c o n ten d s th a t itw a s im p ro p e r f o r Ju d g e T h o m p so n to ru le o n h is r ecus al m ot i on. H e hi ghl i ght s t he s t atut orym andat e thata j udge “ d isq u a lif y h im se lf . . . [ w h e n ] h is im p a rtialitym ig h t re a so n a b lyb e q u e stio n e d .” § 4 5 5 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee U nited S tates v. B alistri eri , 7 7 9 F .2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 0 2 -0 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ S e c tio n 4 5 5 c lea rly cont empl at es t hatdeci s i ons w i t h r es pectt o di s qual i fi cat i on s houl d be made bythe j udge si t t i ng i n the case, and no tbyano t her j ud ge. ”). T he G ov ernm ent ar gu es that, becau se M agl oi r e fi r s tques t i oned J udge G óm ez’ s i m par t i al i t yi n a pos t - t r i al m ot i on fora new tr i al , r athert han i n a mot i on forr ecus al , i tw as pr operforJ udge Thom ps on t o rul e on the is s u e o f re c u s a l. T he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum ents i des t eps the s el f- exec ut i ng natur e of § 455. T hat se c tio n “ im p o se s a d u tyo n th e ju d g e to a c t su a sp o n te , even i f no m ot i on . . . i s fi l ed. ” B alistri eri , 7 7 9 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 2 ; s ee al s o I n r e Ant ar , 71 F. 3d 97, 101 ( 3d C i r . 1995)5

( “Sect i on 455( a) i m pos es a gene r al dut yon a fe der al j udge t o r ecus e w hen ever t her e i s an ap p ea ran ce o f ju d ici al pa rt ial ity . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n Selkr i dge v. U

ni t ed of O m aha Li

f e I ns . C o. , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , we s t at ed: “‘ as i n ot herar eas of the l aw , ther e i s r oom forharm l es s err or ’ i n § 455( a) anal y s i s . ” Id . at171 ( quot i ng Li l j eber g v. Heal th Ser vi ces A cquis i t i on C or p. , 48 6 U. S. 84 7, 86 2 (198 8)) . T hu s, Judg e T ho m pson ’s rul i ng and Judg e G óm ez’s fai l ure t o recuse a re s u b je c t to h a rm le s s e rr o r r e v ie w . G iv e n th is re c o rd , e v e n if w e a s s u m e , ar

guendo , thatJ udge G óm ez s houl d have r ecus ed hi m s el f, the err orw oul d be harm l es s . W her e, as h e re , a c laim th a t th e trial ju d g e sh o u ld h a v e re c u se d h im se lf /h e rse lf is n o t m a d e u n til aft ertr i al , w e r equi r e the cl ai m t o “be s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al j us t i fi cat i on. ” Mar t i n v. Monum entalLi

f e I ns . C o. , 2 4 0 F .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e d e a rth o f

f a c ts M a g lo ire a ss e rts to su p p o rt h is re c u sa l ar g u m e n t f a lls w o e f u lly s hor tof the “mor e compel l i ng s t andar d forr ecus al under§ 455( a) aft erthe conc l us i on of a tr i al . ” I

d. M agl oi r e poi nt s outt hatJ udge G óm ez w as D eputyC r i m i nal C hi ef i n t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce f ort he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands dur i ng the pr etr i al s t ages of hi s pr os ecut i on. H ow ever , s t andi ng al one, the fa ctthatJ udge G óm ez w as one o f se v e ra l A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y s in th e o f f ice th a t p ro se c u ted M a g lo ire w o u ld notcaus e a r eas onabl e and i nform ed obs ervert o ques t i on hi s i m par t i al i t y . A par tfr om Ju d g e G ó m e z ’s te n u re a s a n A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , M a g lo ire o f f e rs little to e sta b lish th a t “a re a so n a b le p e rso n k n o w in g a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld h a rb o r d o u b ts6

conce rni ng t he j udge’ s i m part i al i t y . ” U n itedS ta tes v . D i P a sq u a le , 864 F. 2d 271, 279 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). U n ab le t o b u ttress h is co n tention w ith an ex tr ajud ici al so u rce o f b ias, M ag loir e c h a l l e n g e s J u d g e Gó me z ’ s i mp a r t i a l i t yo n th e b a s i s o f a ru l i n g th a tM a g l o i r e c l a i ms al l ow ed hea r s ayt es t i m onyt o be admi t t ed dur i ng tr i al . H ow ever , “j udi ci al rul i ngs al one a lm o st n e v e r c o n stitu te a v a lid b a sis f o r a . . . p a rtialitym o tio n . . . . [ T ]h e y. . . ca n o n lyin th e ra re s t c ir c u m s ta n c e s e v id e n c e th e d e g re e o f f a v o ri tis m o r a n ta g o n is m re q u ir e d . . . w hen no extr aj udi ci al s our ce i s i nvol ved. ” Li t eky v. U ni t ed Stat es , 510 U . S. 540, 555 ( 1994) . J udge G óm ez’ s rul i ng on t he evi dent i aryques t i on evi dence s no favor i t i s m or a n ta g o n is m to w a rd M a g lo ir e . It is n o t, th e re f o re , a b a s is f

o r r e c u s a l. M or eover , t he cha l l enged rul i ng on M agl oi r e’ s bel at ed hea r s ayobj ect i on does not advanc e hi s cl ai m forr el i ef on a ppeal . D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, defe ns e couns el as ked one of the al i en pas s enger s w hetherM agl oi r e “i ntr oduce[ d] hi m s el f t o [the w i t nes s ] as t he ca p tai n ” o f th e b o at. T h e w itn ess re sp o n d ed that w h en the b o at ow n er c am e o n b o ard w i th h er, he tol d h er that M agloi re and L avil l e “w ou l d b e con t rol l i ng the b oat. ” D efen se couns el di d noti m m edi at el ym ove t o s t r i ke the t es t i m onyon hear s aygr ounds . I ns t ead, defe ns e couns el as ked the w i t nes s fol l ow - up ques t i ons r el at ed t o t hi s al l eged he ar s ay s t at ement . T he fol l ow - up ques t i ons themsel ves cons um e more than fi ve page s of transcr i pt. O nlyaft er the p art i es r eturned f rom the lunch reces s di d d efen se coun sel fi rs t m ove t o s tr i ke thi s t es t i m onyon hear s aygr ounds . I n r es pons e, J udge G óm ez not ed thatFor the same reason, w e re

ject Mag loire’s a

rgument that admission of the challeng ed 1 hear say statement violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Parikh , 858 F.2d at 695-96 (no Confrontation Clause violation wheredefense counse l elicits hearsa y statement from g overnment witness). E ven i f t he st at em ent M agloi re com plai ns of h ad n ot been eli ci t ed b ydefe nse 2 couns el , t he di s t r i ctcourtm i ghtw el l have f ound i tadmi s s i bl e as the s t at ementof a c oc o n s p i r a t o ru n d e rF e d . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( E ) . T h a tR u l e p r o v i d e s : “ a s t a t e m e n tb y a cocons pi r at orof a pa r t ydur i ng t he cour s e and i n fur t her ance of the cons pi r acy ” i s not h e a r s a y . He r e , t h e s t a t e me n twa s ma d e d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f a n a l i e n s mu g g l i n g s c h e me i n w hi ch M agl oi r e pl ay ed an i m por t antr ol e as tr ans por t er . A ddi t i onal l y , the s t at ement w as m ade byt he boat ’ s ow ner , w ho col l ect ed moneyforthe voy age, pr ovi ded the means t o tr ans por tt he al i ens , and al s o pl ay ed a c entr al r ol e i n t he s cheme. M or eover , the s t at ementcan be vi ew ed as m ade i n fur t her ance of the cons pi r acyt o s m uggl e al i ens 7 defe ns e couns el had “a s ked a s er i es of ques t i ons [and] el i ci t ed the [c hal l enged] tes tim o n y .” J u d g e G ó m e z su b se q u e n tlyd e n ied th e m o tio n in o p e n c o u rt, statin g th a t it w o u ld n o t b e “ a p p ro p ri a te ” to s tr ik e “ in f o rm a tio n th a t [ d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l] e lic ite d d u ri n g . .

. cr os s - exami nat i on. ” B eca us e def ens e couns el fi r s tr ai s ed the s ubj ectof w ho, i f any one, w as i den t i fi ed as be i ng i n ch arge of the bo aton the n i gh ti n q uest i on and becau se defen se couns el cont i nued t o el i ci ti nform at i on on t hats ubj ectaft ers ecur i ng the i ni t i al r es pons e, w e bel i eve the di s t r i ctcourtw as w el l w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng M agl oi r e’ s bel at ed m ot i on t o s t r i ke. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. P ar i kh , 858 F. 2d 688, 695 ( 11t h C i r . 1988) 1 ( “W e hol d t hatt he admi s s i on of outof courts t at ement s bya governm entw i t nes s , w hen re sp o n d in g to a n in q u iryb yd e f e n se c o u n se l, cre a tes ‘in v ited e rro r.’” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ab era , 2 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 8 -4 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D r i ver , 242 F. 3d 767, 7 7 0 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“If . . . d ef en se c o u n sel eli cit s testi m o n yat tri al, the d ef en d an t can ’t arg u e o n ap p ea l th at th e e v iden ce w as h ea rsayan d sh o u ld h av e b ee n ex clud ed . ”). 2beca us e the s t at ementi nform ed the pas s enger s w ho w oul d be tr ans por t i ng them t o t he

V irg in Isla n d s, p o ss ib lya llay in g so m e o f th e ir f e a rs a n d g iv in g th e m a se n se o f se c u rityin th e ir in v e stm e n t. M agl oi r e’ s acqui t t al on t he cons pi r acychar ge w oul d nothave pr ecl uded admi s s i on o f th e s t a t e m e n t u n d e r R u l e 801(d)( 2)(E) . “Generally , the trial judg e make s a findingthat the g overnment has shown the conspiracy ’s exist enceby a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e bef

ore the statement is admitted.” Un ited S tates v . D ePeri , 778 F.2d 963, 981 ( 3d Cir. 1985). Acc ording ly , the jury ’s eventual conclusion that the Government failed to establish the c o n s p i ra c y b e yo n d

a r e a s o n a b l ed o u b th a s n o b e ari n go nth es t at e m e nt ’ s a dm i s s ib i l i ty.

8 M ag loir e’s a rgu m en t th at § 4 5 5 (b)(3 ) req u ir ed rec u sal also f ail s b ec au se M ag loir e h as n o t prese n ted a n ything to sh o w that Ju d g e G ó m ez ac ted a s co u n sel o r ad v ised o thers w i th r es pectt o hi s pr os ecut i on. N orhas M agl oi r e as s ert ed anyfac t s s ugges t i ng that J udge G óm ez e xpr es s ed an opi ni on conce r ni ng the mer i t s of M agl oi r e’ s pr os ecut i on w hi l e i n the U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce. W e, ther efor e, concl ude thathi s bel at ed recusal argum ent i s m eri t l ess. III . M agl oi r e’ s cl ai m t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entfar es no bet t er . Sect i on 1 3 2 4 (a )(1 )(A )(I) o f

T itl e 8 o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o d e p ro v id e s: A n yp e rso n w h o — k n o w in g th a t a p e rso n is a n a lien , b rin g s to orat t empt s t o br i ng t o the U ni t ed St at es i n anym anner w h atso ev er su ch p erso n at a p lace o ther tha n a d esig n ated p o rt of entr yorpl ace ot herthan as des i gnat ed bythe C om m i s s i oner , r egar dl es s of w hethers uch al i en has r ece i ved pr i oroffi ci al author i zat i on t o come t o, ent er , orr es i de i n t he U ni t ed St at es and r egar dl es s of anyfutur e off i ci al act i on w hi ch maybe t aken w i t h r es pectt o s uch al i en . . . s hal l be p u n ishe d as p rov ided in su b p ara g rap h (B ). T h ere fo re, § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1)(A )(I ) req u ir ed the G o v ern m en t t o estab li sh : ( 1 ) th at M ag loir e9

br oughtoratt empt ed t o br i ng i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es ; ( 2) an al i en; ( 3) know i ng thatthe p e rs o n w a s a n a lie n ; a n d (4 ) d id s o a t a p la c e o th e r t h a n a d e s ig n a te d p o rt o f e n tr y . S ect i on 13 24 (a) (2) (B )( i i ) of T i t l e 8 o f t he U nit ed S t at es C od e provides: A nyper s on w ho, know i ng ori n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa ct th a t an a lien h a s n o t re c e iv e d p rio r o f f icia l au th o riz a tio n to come t o, ent er , orr es i de i n t he U ni t ed St at es , br i ngs t o or att empt s t o br i ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n anym anner w hat s oever , s uch al i en, r egar dl es s of anyoffi ci al act i on w hi ch m ayl at erbe t aken w i th r es pectt o s uch al i en s hal l , foreac h al i en in r espectt o w ho m a viol at i on of thi s paragraph oc curs .

. . i n t he ca s e of— an off ens e done f

orthe purpos e of comm er ci al advant age orpr i vat e fi nanci al gai n . . . be fi ned u n d e r T itle 1 8 a n d s h a ll b e im p ri s o n e d . . . . T hus , § 1324( a) ( 2) ( B ( i i ) r equi r ed the G overnm entt o es t abl i s h t hat( 1) M agl oi r e br ought orat t empt ed t o br i ng; ( 2) an al i en; ( 3) know i ng orr eckl es s l ydi s r egar di ng the fa ctthatt he al i en had notr ece i ved off i ci al perm i s s i on t o ent er ; and ( 4) di d s o forfi nanci al gai n. “I n r evi ew i ng a j ur yver di ctfors uffi ci encyof the evi dence , w e mustcons i dert he ev iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the [ G ]ov ern m en t and af firm the ju d g m en t i f th ere i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 3 F. 3d 673, 680 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , “[a ] defe ndantchal l engi ng the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence bear s a hea vybur den, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C as

per , 956 F. 2d 416, 421 ( 3d C ir.1 9 9 2 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ), in try in g to o v e rtu rn a v e rd ict. T he ev i den ce w e hav e sum m ari zed ab ov e i s cl earl ysuffici ent t o est abli sh M agl oi r e’ s gui l tunderbot h s t atut es . M agl oi r e di r ect s us t o U ni t ed Stat es v. N

guyen , 7310

F. 3d 887 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) and U ni t ed Stat es v. B ar aj as - Mont i el , 1 8 5 F . 3 d 9 4 7 (9th C ir . 1999) , i n ur gi ng us t o cons t rue s ect i ons 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) and 1324( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) as r equi r i ng a s peci fi c cr i m i nal i nt entt o vi ol at e the i m m i gr at i on l aw . H ow ever , w e nee d not d e c id e w h e th e r th o se se c tio n s h a v e th a t m ens r ea req u ir em en t bec au se th e re co rd h ere w o u ld a llo w a re a so n a b le ju ryto f in d a ll th e e lem e n ts b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t ev e n if w e w er e t o r equi r e s peci fi c i nt entt o vi ol at e the i m m i gr at i on l aw . Speci fi cal l y , the al i ens w e re f irst lo a d e d o n a sm a ll b o a t th a t lef t h a rb o r u n d e r c o v e r o f

d a rk n e ss o r in th e e a rly m or ni ng hour s . T heyw er e then tr ans por t ed t o a l ar gerboatthatbr oughtthem t o t he V i r gi n I s l ands ata l ocat i on t hatw as nei t heri nt ended nordes i gned as a portof entr y , but w h ich d id m in im ize th e c h a n c e th a t th e yw o u ld e n c o u n ter im m ig ra tio n a u th o rities . T h is c e rta in lysu g g e sts so m e th in g o th e r th a n th e typ ica l C a rib b e a n c ru ise . A ju ryc o u ld cert ai nl yconcl ude thatt hi s pr ocedur e w as us ed t o m i ni m i ze the l i kel i hood of det ect i on by author i t i es . I ndeed, w e ca n t hi nk of no otherexpl anat i on forthe t i m e orm ethod of departur e. A ccor di ngl y , t her e i s enough her e t o es t abl i s h M agl oi r e’ s cr i m i nal i nt enteven i f w e conc l ude thatel ementi s r equi r ed forconvi ct i on. M a g l o i r e a r g u e s t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s h i s c o n t e n t i o n th a th e w a s m e r e l y a pas s engeron t he boat , l i ke the otherthi r t y - t w o al i ens appr ehende d byV i r gi n I s l ands Pol i ce D epart m ent , and thatt he r ecor d does nots uppor tthe conc l us i on thathe br ought them i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . H ow ever , as not ed atthe out s et , the G overnm ent ’ s evi dence es t abl i s hed thatM agl oi r e and Lavi l l e w er e the onl ytw o peopl e w ho oper at ed the boat11

dur i ng i t s s oj our n fr om D om i ni ca t o the V i r gi n I s l ands , and thatthe ow nerof the boat in tro d u c e d M a g lo ire a s o n e o f th e b o a t’s tw o “ o p e ra to rs.” F u rth e rm o re , M a g lo ire w a s in pos s es s i on of a G PS w hen appr ehende d. T hati s cons i s t entw i t h t es t i m onythathe w as an o p era tor; a p asse n g er w o u ld n o t nee d a sa tel li te na v igating d ev ice. T h e G o v ern m en t’ s evi dence al s o es t abl i s hed thatt he boatcarr i ed H ai t i an, C uban, D om i ni can, and B r azi l i an n a tio n a ls w h o p a id to e n ter th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly . M o re o v e r, th e b o a t ra n a g ro u n d in a cha nnel t hatdi d notl ead t o t he G al l ow s B aydock— t he des i gnat ed por tof entr yfor ves s el s arr i vi ng i n C hr i s t i ans t ed. B as ed on the for egoi ng, a r at i onal j ur orcoul d i nfert hat M ag loir e b rou g h t i ll eg al ali en s to the U n it ed S tat es a t a plac e o ther tha n a d esig n ated p o rt o f e n try ; i n d ee d , the ju ror w o u ld b e h ard p resse d to co n clud e a n ything else. M o reo v er, w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , the evi dence al s o es t abl i s hed th a t M a g lo ir e k n e w th e p a s s e n g e rs w e re a lie n s . M agl oi r e furt hercont ends t hatthe G overnm ent ’ s evi dence fai l ed t o es t abl i s h that he br oughtal i ens t o t he U ni t ed St at es forfi nanci al gai n. W e have al r eadys um m ar i zed the evi dence t hatunderm i nes t hatcl ai m . W e nee d onl yr ei t er at e the t es t i m onythatal i en s m uggl i ng oper at i ons us ual l ybegi n athol di ng l ocat i ons , l i ke D om i ni ca, and thatthe i nd i vidual s w ho op erat e bo at s transport i ng al i ens are com pen sat ed fo r theireffo rt s. I ns ofaras 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) “does notr equi r e evi dence of an a ctual paym entor even a n agr eementt o pay , ” U n itedS ta tes v . A n g w in , 2 7 1 F .3 d 7 8 6 , 8 0 5 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), a r at i onal j ur orcoul d i nfert hatM agl oi r e knew oract ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa ctt hat12

the al i ens he tr ans por t ed l acke d offi ci al perm i s s i on t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es , and thathe had bee n, orw oul d be, compensa t ed w i t h a por t i on of the moneythatthe al i ens pai d t o be transport ed to the U nit ed S t at es. F in a lly, M a g lo ir e a rg u e s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r s e v e ra l r e a s o n s . H ow ever , “cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e or di nar i l ynotcogni zabl e on di r ectappea l . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . T

o b in , 155 F. 3d 636, 643 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . “The pr oper m echa ni s m forchal l engi ng t he ef fi cac yof couns el i s thr ough a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. ” I

d. I ti s n o t , t h e r e f

o r e , a p p r o p r i a t e f

o ru s t o a d d r e s s th a ti s s u e n o w. I V.