T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril4,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ee/ C ross A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 3182 & 06- 3224

v. (D i stri ctof K ansas) HE CT OR S AL I NAS - VAL E NC I ANO, D efen dan t -A pp el l ant/ C ross A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - 1 0 1 4 3 - 0 1 - J T M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , M c CO NNELL , and M c KAY , C i rcui tJudg es. T h is a p p e a l p re se n ts a trick ye v id e n tiary qu e stio n , as y e t u n re so lv e d in th is Ci r c u i t , s t e mmi n g f

r o m C r aw

f or d v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 (2 0 0 4 ). U nfor tunat el y , beca us e of i nadequa t e br i efi ng, w e ca nnotr endera fi r m and p re c e d e n tia l a n s w e r.-2- I. H ect orSal i nas - V al enci ano w as arr es t ed i n Sedgw i ck C ounty , K ans as on M ar ch 6, 2005, on dom es t i c- bat t eryand drug char ges . C ountyoffi ci al s i nform ed I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( I C E ) , w hi ch pl ace d a det ai nerhol d on t he D efe ndantt he nextdayon t he s us pi ci on thathe w as an i l l egal al i en w ho had pr evi ous l ybeen de por t ed af t ercomm i s s i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d (b )(2 ). H e w a s c o n v icte d o f th e sta te c h a rg e s o n Ju ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , s e n te n c e d to tim e s e rv e d , a n d tr a n s fe rr e d th e n e x t d a yto IC E c u s to d y . O n J ul y26, 2005, t he D efe ndantw as i ndi ct ed fe der al l yon one countof r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on s ubs equentt o an aggr avat ed fe l ony . A § 1326 i ndi ctm entr equi r es t hatt he governm entpr ove fourthi ngs , one of w hi ch i s that th e d e fe n d a n t n e v e r a p p lie d fo r a n d re c e iv e d p e rm is s io n to re e n te r t h e c o u n tr y . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - Mor el , 1 1 8 F .3 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 2 -1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A t trial, t he governm entatt empt ed t o pr ove thi s el ements ol el ythr ough the i ntr oduct i on of a C er t i fi cat e of N on- exi s t ence of R ecor d ( C N R ) . T he C N R w as a s t at ement s i gn e d b yM i ke Q ui nn , t he c hi e f o f the Rec or ds Se r vi c e Br a nc h a tU . S. C iti z e n sh ip a n d Im m ig ra tio n S e rv ice s, sta tin g th a t eith e r M r. Q u in n o r o n e o f h is empl oy ees had s ear ched thei rdat abas e fora r ecor d thatM r . Sal i nas - V al enci ano h ad ap p li ed fo r an d rec eive d p erm issi o n to re-en ter. Itstat ed that, “a fter a d ili g e n t se a rc h w a s p e rfo rm e d in th e se d a tab a se sy ste m s, n o re c o rd w a s fo u n d to exi s ti ndi cat i ng t hat[M r . Sal i nas - V al enci ano] obt ai ned cons ent. . . forr e--3-

admi s s i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . , A pp. G , at2. T he C N R l i s t ed the in fo rm ati o n that w as k ey ed into the d ata se arc h : th e fil e n u m b er, th e su bject’s name ( “H E C T O R SA L I N A S- V A L E N C I A N O ”) , othernames ( none) , bi r th dat e, and cou ntryof b i rth. N ei t her M r. Q uinn no r any on e el se i nv olved i n the dat abase s e a rc h o r t h e p re p a ra tio n o f th e C N R te s tifie d . T o obt ai n a § 1326 convi ct i on, the governm entm us tal s o pr ove thatthe d e fe n d a n t w a s a c tu a lly d e p o rt e d . Mar t i nez - Mor el , 118 F. 3d at712- 13. T he governm entdi d s o her e byent er i ng i nt o evi dence a w arr antof deport at i on, w hi ch i ncl uded a s i gned s t at ementbyan uni dent i fi ed I C E offi ci al , s ay i ng thathe s aw th e d e fe n d a n t lea v e th e c o u n try . T h e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t ca ll th a t IC E o fficia l to test ifyo r i d en ti fyh im b yn am e. M r. S ali n as-V alen cian o o bjected u n d er C raw f ord t o t he admi s s i on of both t he C N R and the w arr antof deport at i on. M r . Sal i nas - V al enci ano w as convi ct ed bya j ur y . A ts ent enci ng, the governm entobj ect ed thatt he defendant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on foratt empt ed s exual batt eryw as m i scharact eri zed b ythe co urtas an ag gravat ed fe l on yrather than as a cr i m e of vi ol ence , r es ul t i ng i n an ei ght - l evel enhanc ementr atherthan a s i xt eenl evel enhanc ement . T he D efe ndantobj ect ed thatthe governm entl i s t ed hi s dat e of captur e as J ul y12, 2005, r athert han M ar ch 7, 2005, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a hi gher crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry . T h e sh iftin crim inal h ist o ryraised the D efen d an t’ s se n ten c in g ra n g e f

ro m 2 4 -3 0 m o n th s to 2 7 -3 3 m o n th s. T h e ju d g e d e n ied b o th m o tio n s a n d se n ten c e d th e d e fe n d a n t to 2 7 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t.-4-

M r . S a l i n a s - Va l e n c i a n o a p p e a l s th e a d mi s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e o f th e CN R and the w arr antof deport at i on, ar gui ng thatboth vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e as enunci at ed i n C raw f ord . H e a lso a p p ea ls th e c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e w a s “ fo u n d in ” th e c o u n tr yo n J u ly 1 2 ra th e r t h a n M a rc h 7 . T h e Go v e r n me n tc r o s s - a p p e a l s o n th e s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n ti s s u e . Be c a u s e we rever se on the evident i aryi ssue, w e need no tadd res s ei ther M r. S al i nasV a le n c ia n o ’s o th e r g ro u n d s fo r a p p e a l o r t h e g o v e rn m e n t’ s c ro s s -a p p e a l. II. T h e C o n f

ro n tatio n C lau se o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t sta tes th a t, “[ i]n a ll c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n s, th e a c c u se d sh a ll enjo yth e rig h t . . . to b e c o n f ro n ted w ith w i t nes s es agai ns thi m . ” U . S. C ons t . amend. V I . I n C raw f ord , the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d t hat , undert he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, “the Fr amer s w oul d nothave a l l ow ed adm i ssi on of tes t i m on i al st at em ents of a w i tness w ho did not appear attri al un l ess he w as unavai l abl e t o t es t i fy , and the defendanthad had a pr i oroppor tuni tyfor cr os s - exami nat i on. ” 5 4 1 U .S . a t 5 3 -5 4 . T he C raw

f ordC o u rt d id n o t f

u lly d e fin e th e m e a n in g o f “ te s tim o n ia l,” n o tin g th e e x is te n c e o f a n u m b e r o f

fo rm u la tio n s th a t “ s h a re a c o m m o n n u c le u s .” Id. a t 5 2 . It p o in ted o u t th a t “[ m ]o st o f th e h e a rsa ye x c e p tio n s c o v e r[ ] sta tem e n ts t hatbyt hei rnatur e [a r e] nott es t i m oni al

— forexampl e, bus i nes s r ecor ds or s t at ement s i n fur t her ance of a c ons pi r acy . ” Id. at56. T hi s C our thas s i nce adopt ed a de fi ni t i on of “t es t i m oni al ” verys i m i l art o one ci t ed i n C raw f ord . In-5-

United S tates v. Su m m ers , 414 F. 3d 1287 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , w e hel d that“a s t at ementi s t es t i m oni al i f a r eas onabl e per s on i n the pos i t i on of the dec l ar ant w oul d obj ect i vel yfor es ee thathi s s t at ementm i ghtbe us ed i n the i nves t i gat i on or pr os ecut i on of a c r i m e. ” Id. at1302. M r . Sal i nas - V al enci ano cha l l enges the admi s s i on both of the w arr antof depor t at i on and of the C N R . H e cont ends thatthe evi dence i s t es t i m oni al under C raw f orda n d th e re fo re in a d m is s ib le in th e a b s e n c e o f te s tim o n yb yth e d e c la ra n t. In a re c e n t u n p u b lish e d o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t, a p a n e l o f th is C o u rt h e ld th a t b o th C N R s and w arr ant s of deport at i on ar e non- t es t i m oni al , beca us e theyqual i fyunder Fed. R . E vi d. 803( 8) and ( 10) as publ i c r ecor ds oras cert i fi cat es of the abs ence of a p u b lic re c o rd . Uni t ed Stat es v. Lara-Ibanez , 2 0 3 F . A p p ’x 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 -2 0 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n ). A s a n u n p u b lis h e d o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t, LaraIbanezi s non- bi ndi ng, and ca n gui de ourdeci s i on onl yi ns ofaras i ti s per s uas i ve. 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (A ). W e b eli ev e tha t th e tw o d o cu m en ts r aise d iffe ren t i ssu es u n d er C raw f ord , a n d th e re fo re a n a lyze th e m s e p a ra te ly. A . T he W arr antof D eport at i on W e agr ee w i t h t he governm ent

— and w i th Lara-Ibanez

— thatw arr ant s of d e p o rta tio n a re n o t tes tim o n ial. A ll circ u its to h a v e a d d re ss e d th e iss u e h a v e h e ld t hatadmi s s i ons of w arr ant s of deport at i on do notvi ol at e C raw f ord . Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es - Vi l l al obos , 4 7 7 F .3 d 9 7 8 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Un itedS ta tes v . G a rc ia , 452-6-

F . 3 d 3 6 , 4 2 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Valdez

- Mal t os , 443 F. 3d 910, 911 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (p e r c u ria m ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C ant el lano , 430 F. 3d 1142, 1145 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. B ahena- C ar denas , 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 5 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e k eyq u esti o n u n d er C raw f ordi s w hetherthe documents oughtt o be i nt r oduced w as pr epar ed fort he purpos e of l i t i gat i on, orw hetheri tw as pr epar ed forr egul at or y , bus i nes s , orot herpurpos es apartfr om the pos s i bi l i tyof i t s us e as e v id e n c e in a le g a l p ro c e e d in g . See Su m m ers , 414 F. 3d at1302. W e bel i eve that w arr ant s of deport at i on ar e non- t es t i m oni al underthi s defi ni t i on. A w arr antof depor t at i on i s a publ i c r ecor d s i gned bya publ i c off i ci al att es t i ng t o the fa ctthat th e in d iv id u a l in q u e stio n a c tu a llylef t th e c o u n try . Its p rim a ryp u rp o se is to e n a b le im m ig ra tio n a u th o ri tie s to k e e p tr a c k o f w h o h a s b e e n d e p o rt e d a n d w h e n . I tw oul d be us eful , forexampl e, i f the deport ed i ndi vi dual l at ers oughtl aw ful a d m iss io n to th e U n ited S tate s. A s th e E ig h th C irc u it rec e n tlyn o ted , “[ w ]a rra n ts o f d e p o rta tio n a re p ro d u c e d u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s o bjec tiv e lyin d ica tin g th a t th e ir p rim a ryp u rp o se is to m a in tain re c o rd s c o n c e rn in g th e m o v e m e n ts o f a lien s a n d to en su re c o m p li an ce w ith o rde rs of d ep o rt ati o n , n o t t o p rov e fac ts fo r use in f u ture cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons . ” Torr es - Vi l lal obos , 2007 W L 528195, at*4. T he w arr ant o f d e p o rta tio n in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e in th is c a se w a s n o t p re p a re d in c o n tem p latio n o f

lit ig a tio n , an d its a d m iss io n th e re fo re d o e s n o t v io late th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.-7-

B . T h e C erti fica te of

N o n -E x ist en ce o f R ec o rd T hr ee c i r cui t s have he l d t hatC N R s do notvi ol at e C raw f ord . Uni t ed Stat es v. Urqha rt , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 9 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C er vant es - F l or es , 4 2 1 F .3 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 0 -3 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); United S tates v. R ueda-R i vera , 396 F. 3d 678, 680 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( percur i am). T hes e opi ni ons r el yheavi l yon the l anguage i n C raw

f ordth a t r e fe rs to b u s in e s s re c o rd s . See, e. g. , Urqha rt , 469 F. 3d at 74 8 -49 (“ C raw

f ords eemi ngl yexcl uded bus i nes s r ecor ds fr om the cl as s i fi cat i on of tes t i m on i al st at em ents . . . . T hu s, a C N R . . . i s si m i l ar enou gh t o a b usi ness rec o rd th at i t i s n o n test im o n ial u n d er C raw f ordand pr es ent s no C onfr ont at i on C la u s e c o n c e rn s .” ). T h is is n o t e n tir e ly p e rs u a s iv e . W e ca n agr ee thatt he under l y i ng C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces dat abas e cont ai ni ng r ecor ds of r eques t s forperm i s s i on t o r eent eri s an off i ci al r ecor d and i s nott es t i m oni al . T he dat abas e i s cr eat ed i n connec t i on w i th ongoi ng re g u lato ryf

u n c tio n s in d e p e n d e n t o f p ro se c u tio n . A p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e is en ti tl ed u n d er C raw

f ordt o cr os s - exami ne a w i tnes s r egar di ng the ac cur acyand re lia b ility o f

th e d a ta b a s e is th e re fo re m is ta k e n . B utt he C N R i t s el f i s a di ffe r entm at t er . U nl i ke w arr ant s of deport at i on, C N R s a re p re p a re d sp e c ifica llyin c o n tem p latio n o f lit ig a tio n . In d e e d , the so le p u rpo se o f a C N R is t o p rov ide th e p roo f n ec essa ryin a p rose cu ti o n u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s n o t g iv e n p e rm is s io n to re e n te r t h e c o u n tr y .T h e CN R i s s i g n e d b yM i k e Qu i n n , b u th e s t a t e s i n t h e t e x to f t h e CN R 1 t hat“I , oran age ncyempl oy ee a ct i ng atm ydi r ect i on, per form ed a s ear ch for r ecor ds r el at i ng t o t he s ubj ecti dent i fi ed bel ow . ” -8- I thas no ot herus e. T he C N R i n thi s cas e w as s i gned on A ugus t9, 2005, thi r t een day s aft ert he defendantw as i ndi ct ed. I tw as pr oduced t o be us ed as partof the g o v e rn m e n t’ s c a s e in c h ie f. T h e d e c lar a n t w ith re sp e c t to th e C N R is th e p e rso n w h o a c tu a lly p erfo rm ed the d ata se arc h an d w h o d isco v ere d n o rec o rd p ertaining to M r. S al i nas-V al enciano. If the d ecl arantt est i fi ed at tri al , he o r s he co uld be cross- 1 exami ned r egar di ng w hen and how t he dat a s ear ch w as conduct ed. I ti s farfr om cl earhow t hi s coul d be of pr act i cal as s i s t ance t o the defens e i n m os tcas es . T o be s ur e, i f the defendantcoul d es t abl i s h thatt he queryt o the dat abas e w as i nacc ur at e, forexampl e i f the s ubj ect ’ s name w er e mi s s pel l ed orotheri dent i fy i ng in fo rm a tio n in a c c u ra te ly k e y e d in , th is w o u ld im p e a c h th e v a lid ity o f th e C N R . B utt he C N R i t s el f al r eadyl i s t s pr eci s el yt he i nform at i on us ed i n the dat a s ear ch: the s u bject’s na m e, nu m b er, da te of b irth, and co u n tryo f o ri g in. A n yerro rs w ou l d b e evident fr om t he fa ce of t he d ocu m ent. Iti s hard t o see ho w cross exami nat i on w oul d add much of subs t ance . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w e a re n o t ce rta in th a t th e e v id e n c e fa lls w ith in t he ambi tof the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, ort hatanyvi ol at i on coul d be othert han h a rm les s. In a n a n a lo g o u s c o n tex t, th e S e v e n th C irc u it h e ld th a t itd id n o t v io late t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, as i nt erpr et ed i n C raw f ord , t o admi ta ce r t i fi cat e fr om-9-

th e c u sto d ian o f

re c o rd s a t a h o sp ital a ttes tin g th a t atta c h e d d o c u m e n ts e sta b lish in g th e p re se n c e o f m e th a m p h e tam in e in th e d e fe n d a n t’s s y ste m w e re , in fa c t, h o s p ita l r e c o rd s . Un itedS ta tes v . E llis , 4 6 0 F . 3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 -27 (7th C ir . 2006) . T he ce r t i fi cat e “[ di d] notpurpor tt o conveyi nform at i on about[the d e fe n d a n t], b u t m e re lye sta b lish [ e d ] th e e x iste n c e o f th e p ro c e d u re s n e c e ss a ryto cr eat e a bus i nes s r ecor d. ” Id. A l though r ecogni zi ng thatthe ce r t i fi cat e w as m ade in a n tic ip a tio n o f

litig a tio n , th e c o u rt h e ld th a t th is fa c t w a s n o t c o n tr o llin g . Id. at 927. “G i ven the r ecor ds t hemsel ves do notfal l w i thi n the cons t i tut i onal guar ant ee pr ovi ded byt he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, ” the courtr eas oned, “i tw oul d be odd t o hol d t hatt he founda t i onal evi dence authent i cat i ng the document s do. ” Id. T he courtt hus found admi s s i on of the ce r t i fi cat e “t oo farr emoved fr om the

‘ pr i nci pal evi l atw hi ch the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e w as di r ect ed. ’ ” Id. , quot i ng C raw f ord , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 5 0 . T he s ame ar gum entm i ght( al m os t ) appl yt o a C N R . T he pr i nci pal di ffe r ence i s t hatC N R s ar e cr eat ed byagent s of the governm ent , w hi l e the cert i fi cat e i n E llis w as cr eat ed by an empl oy ee of the hos pi t al . T he conc erns of t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e mi ghtar guabl ybe more pert i nenti n the ca s e of e v id e n c e c re a ted b ya g o v e rn m e n t ag e n t. Ju stic e S c a lia, w riting fo r th e C o u rt, st at es: I nvol vementof governm entoffi cer s i n the pr oduct i on of t es t i m onyw i th an ey e t ow ar d t r i al pr es ent s uni que pot ent i al forpr os ecut or i al abus e— a fa ct b o rne o u t t im e a n d ag ain th rou g h o u t a historyw ith w h ich th e F ram ers w ere-10-

keenl yfami l i ar . T hi s cons i der at i on does notevapor at e w hen t es t i m ony happens t o fal l w i t hi n s om e br oad, m odern hear s ayexce pt i on, even i f that e x c e p tio n m ig h t b e ju s tifia b le in o th e r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C raw f ord , 541 U . S. at56 n. 7. W hetherthi s di s t i nct i on i s s uffi ci entt o r equi r e a di ffe r entr es ul ti s a ni ce que s t i on, even a s s um i ng thatthi s C our tw oul d fol l ow t he r eas oni ng of E llis . T he governm ent , how ever , di d notm ake a nyof thes e ar gum ent s . T he governm ent ’ s s ol e ar gum entcons i s t ed of a ci t at i on t o the pane l ’ s unpubl i s hed deci s i on i n Lara-Ibanez , a n d to u rg e th e C o u rt to a d o p t th a t a n a lysis h e re . LaraIbanezdevot es a s i ngl e par agr aph t o the ques t i on of C N R s , s ay i ng s i m pl ythat“A C e rtific a te o f

N o E x iste n c e o f

R e c o rd (C N R ) h a s a lso b e e n h e ld to c o m e w ith in t he e xc e pt i on t o the he a r s a yrul e a s s e tfo r th i n Fe d. R. Evi d. 80 3( 10 ) . ” 20 3 F. A pp’ x at204. A s not ed i n C raw f ord , how ever , the mer e fa ctthata s t at ement “fa l l [s ] w i t hi n s om e br oad, m odern hear s ayexce pt i on” i s nots uffi ci entt o r ender it n o n te s tim o n ia l. C r a w fo r d, 5 4 1 U .S . a t 5 6 n .7 . A s e p a ra te a n a lysis is n e e d e d . Lara-Ibanezse e m in g lyre sts o n th e p re m ise th a t an ysta tem e n t th a t fits w i t hi n cert ai n hear s ayexce pt i ons i s , byi t s natur e, nont es t i m oni al . T he opi ni on ci t es t o C hi ef J us t i ce Rehnqui s t ’ s concurr ence i n C raw f ord , w hi ch s t at es , “the C our t ’ s anal y s i s of ‘ t es t i m ony ’ excl udes atl eas ts om e hea r s ayexce pt i ons , s uch as bus i nes s r ecor ds and off i ci al r ecor ds . ” C raw

f ord , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 7 6 (R e h n q u is t, C .J ., concurr i ng) . B utt he C N R i s noti t s el f an offi ci al r ecor d w i thi n the meani ng of Fed. R . E vi d. 803( 8) ; i ti s a documentpr epar ed forpurpos es of pr os ecut i on,-11-

r epor t i ng t he abs ence of a publ i c r ecor d. M or eover , the pr emi s e of C raw f ordis th a t w e a re c o n stitu tio n a llyre q u ire d to d o a se c o n d C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se a n a ly sis e v e n if w e h a v e d e te rm in e d th a t a p ie c e o f e v id e n c e fits in to a h e a rs a ye x c e p tio n . A s n o ted a b o v e , the a p p lica tio n o f th e C o n f

ro n tatio n C lau se to p u re ly m i ni s t er i al document s w hos e onl ypurpos e i s t o es t abl i s h the founda t i on for admi s s i on of nont es t i m oni al evi dence i s uncl ear , and eve n i f the admi s s i on of su c h e v id e n c e is e rro r, itm a yb e h a rm les s b yits n a tu re . B u t w e a re re lu c tan t to d e c id e a q u e stio n o f

first im p re ss io n , p a rticu lar lyw h e re it rec u rs s o f re q u e n tly , in th e a b se n c e o f

f u ll ad v e rsa ria l p re se n tatio n . B e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t p u ts forw ar d no ar gum ent– ot hert han r el i ance on Lara-Ibanez– as t o w hythe s t at ementi n ques t i on i s nont es t i m oni al and makes no ar gum entthatthe err orw as h a rm le s s , w e fin d fo r t h e d e fe n d a n t in th is c a s e . T he C N R w as the g ov ernm ent’ s sol e evidence to prove thatM r. S al i nasV al enci ano neve rs ucce s s ful l yappl i ed forr e- entry . W i thoutthatevi dence , the p ro o f a g a in s t th e d e fe n d a n t is in s u ffic ie n t to s u s ta in th e c h a rg e s . III . Fi nal l y , w e addr es s how t he di s tr i ctcourts houl d pr ocee d s houl d the governm entat t empt t o r el i t i gat e the cha r ges . W her e a c onvi ct i on i s overturned b e c a u se a p iec e o f

e v id e n c e n e c e ss a ryto o b tain th e c o n v ictio n w a s e rro n e o u sly a d m itte d a t tr ia l, D o u b le J e o p a rd yd o e s n o t b a r r e tr ia l. Lockhar tv. Nels on , 488 U .S . 3 3 , 3 9 -4 2 (1 9 8 8 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wacke r , 7 2 F . 3 d 1 4 5 3 , 1 4 6 5 (10 th C ir .-12-

1995) . H ad the courtbel ow rul ed thi s evi dence vi ol at i ve of C raw f ord , “the tr i al j udge w oul d pr es um abl yhave a l l ow ed the pr os ecut oran opportuni tyt o offe r [addi t i onal ] evi dence . ” L ockh art , 4 8 8 U .S . at 4 2 . P e rm itt in g re trial “ th u s m e re ly r ecr eat es t he s i tuat i on t hatw oul d have be en obt ai ned i f the tr i al courthad excl uded the evi dence of the convi ct i on. ” Id. T h u s, th e g o v e rn m e n t is f re e to pr es entnew evi dence on r emand, i ncl udi ng, i f i tw i s hes , t es t i m onybya dec l ar ant w h o c o u ld p ro v id e th e fo u n d a tio n fo r a d m is s io n o f th e C N R . H ow ever , t he governm enti s barr ed fr om r el i t i gat i ng the i s s ue of the ad m issi b il ityo f th e C N R , ab sen t a t esti m o n ial fo u n d ati o n . A lth o u g h in f u ture l i t i gat i on t he governm entm aybe abl e t o s quar e the admi s s i on of a CN R w i th the r equi r ement s of C raw f ord , i tfai l ed t o do s o i n thi s cas e, and maynotdo s o on re m a n d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Hus band , 312 F. 3d 247, 250- 51 ( 7th C i r . 2002) (discu ssing the e ffec t of w aive r an d co n clus ive a p p ell ate ru li n g s o n rem an d ). W e R EV ER SE t he defendant ’ s convi ct i on and RE M AND to d istri ct co u rt forfur t herpr ocee di ngs . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue forthw i th.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge