FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 21, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12404 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D o c k e tN o . 0 4
- 2 0 5 8 9
- C R
- C MA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I G U E L P E R E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 21, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: M i g u e l Pe r e z ap p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n , e n t e r e d a f t e r a tw o - d a y b e n c h tr i a l , f or
m u l t i p l e co u n t s o f b ri n g i n g a l i en s t o th e U n i t ed S t at es k n o w i n g , o r i n reck l ess di s r e ga r d o f t h e fac ttha tthe a l i e ns ha d notr e c e i ve d pr i ora uthor i z a t i on t o e nt e rthe2

coun try , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 32 4(a) (2)( B )( i i i ). T he charg es ar o se from l aw
e nf or c e m e nt ’ s di s c ove r y of s i x C uba n na t i ona l s on a boa tfro m w hi c h P e r e z , a l ong
w i th a c o- de f

e nda nt , the ow ne rof the boa t , ha d di s e m ba r ke d a tM a the s on H a m m oc k i n s outhw e s t e r n M i a m i
- D a de C ounty . O n appe a l , P erez ar gue s the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by : ( 1) d en yi ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e s e i z e d f r om the boa t ; ( 2) a dm i t t i ng e vi de n c e of hi s 2002 c onvi c t i on f

ors m uggl i ng a l i e ns , pur s ua nt to F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) ; a n d ( 3 ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, pur s ua ntt o F e d. R
. C r i m . P
. 2 9 , i n w h i ch he a r gue d the gove r nm e ntf a i l e d t o s how th a t h e k n o w in g ly c o m m itte d th e o f f e n s e o ra c te d w ith r e c k l e s s d is r e g a r d o f h is p a s s e n g e r s ’ s t a tu s a s i l l e g a l a l i e n s . A f t e rth o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f f i r m. I.

“ A d i st ri ctc our t ’ s rul i ng on a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr e s e nt s a m i xe d que s t i on of l a w a nd f

a c t . ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. Za pa t a , 18 0 F. 3d 12 37 , 12 40 ( 11 th C i r. 19 99 ). We a c c e p tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s a s tru e u n l e s s th e f i n d i n g s a r e s h o wn t o b e cl earl y erro n eo u s . I d
. a t 1 2 4 0 -4 1
. A l l fact s are co n stru ed i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the p rev ai l i n g pa r ty be l ow . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e r va l di , 226 F
. 3d 1256, 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w to th e f

a c ts is
r e vi e w e d de novo. I d. W e r e vi e w f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i o n a d i st ri ctc our t ’ s rul i ng
on the adm i ss i bi l i ty of e vi dence of uncharged con du ct u n d er R ul e 404 (b). S ee3

U n ite d S ta te s v . M i l l e r , 9 5 9 F .2 d 1 5 3 5 , 1 5 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e
r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n i a l o f a m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, vi e w i ng the f

a c t s a nd dr a w i ng al l i nf e r e nc e s i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the go vernm en t. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D es ce nt , 29 2 F
. 3d 70 3, 70 6 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ),
c e r t . d en i ed , 537 U
. S
. 1132 ( 2003)
. T o a f f i r m the de ni a l of

a m ot i on f

orj udgm e nt
o f a c q u itta l, f

ile d p u r s u a n t to F e d . R . C r im . P . 2 9 , w e n e e d d e te r m in e o n ly th a t a
re as o n ab le fa ctfin d erco u ld co n clu d e th at th e e v id e n ce es tab li sh ed th e d ef en d an t’ s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt
. I d. T he r e l e va nt f

a c t s a r e s tr a i ght f

or w a r d. O n A ugus t 6, 2004, P e r e z an d h i s code f e nda n t , J u a n Ca r l o s V a l d e z , w e r e i n d i c t e d f o ro n e c o u n to f

c o n s p i r i n g t o br i ng
a l i e n s i n t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 3 7 1 a n d 8 U
. S. C. § 1 32 4(a) (2)( B )( i i i ) ( C ou nt1), and si x cou nt s o f bri ng i ng al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed S t a t e s i l l e ga l l y , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1324( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) a nd 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2 ( C ount s 2- 7)
. B e f

or e tr i a l , P e r e z f

i l e d a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e di s c ove r e d by th e g o v e r n m e n t a t th e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t. I n h is m o tio n , P e r e z s ta te d th a t, o n J u ly 25, 2004, l a w e nfo rcem e nta ge nt s f r om the M i a m i
- D a de C ounty P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt (“ M D P D ”) and t he U
. S
. B order P atrol bo ar ded a bo at at the M atheson H am m ock M ar i na, w i tho utconsentor a w arra nt , and d i sc ov er ed si x il leg al al i ens w ho se entry i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es form ed the basi s of the charges agai n st h im . P er ez ar gu edTerr y v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 1 4 that : (1) the st op w as no ta val i d b o rd er se ar ch si nce there w as no evi dence the bo at h ad cr osse d an i nt ernat i on al bo un dary ; and (2) the encoun t erw as no ta val i d T erry 1
s t op be c a us e the l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s di d notha ve r e a s ona bl e s us pi c i on of ille g a l a c tiv ity . A ls o b e f o r e tr ia l, th e g o v e r n m e n t f ile d n o tic e o f i t s in te n t to in tr o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f

P e r e z ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n f o ra lie n s m u g g lin g , p u r s u a n t to F ed. R
. E vi d. 40 4(b). A tthe supp re ss i on hear i ng , M D P D L i eut enantA rthu r G on za l ez t es t i fi ed that
o n th e e v e n in g o f

J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , w h i l e p e r f o r m in g a n o f

f
- d u ty r e s id e n tia l p a tr o l in
s outhw e s tM i a m i
- D a de C ounty , he e nt e r e d M a the s on H a m m oc k M a r i na a nd obs e r ve d a boa tdoc ki ng w i th f ou r m en on i t . T hi s obs e r va t i on t ook pl a c e a ta bout 1 :0 0 A .M . a n d L t. G o n z a l e z t e s t if ie d th a t, g iv e n th e “r o u g h ” w e a th e r , h e f o u n d it
un usual for abo att o b e d o ck in g thatl at e i n t he eveni ng . L t . G on za l ez turned o ff th e e n g in e o f

h is u n m a r k e d p o lic e c ru is e r a n d w a t c h e d a s th e 2 8
- f o o t R o b e r ts fi shi ng bo atent er ed i t s dock l ocat i on . L t . G on za l ez sa i d t hat th e m en o n the bo at
w a t c he d hi m a s he dr ov e by a nd tha tthe y appe a r e d t o be “ c onf us e d” a nd

“ a w kw a r d” i n the i rha ndl i ng of the boa t . H e a l s o obs e r ve d no i nd i cat i o n t ha tthe
m e n ha d be e n f

i s hi ng, b utr a the r , tha tthe y l ooke d “ ve r y c l e a n” a nd “ ne a t , ” w hi c h, to L t. G o n z a le z , w a s n o t c o n s is te n t w ith f is h in g .5

A ft er the me n h a d l oa de d the bo a ton t o atr a i l e r , Lt
. G on z a l e z app r oa ched t h em as t h ey w er e s t a ndi ng ne xtt o the truc k. H e w a s a l one a nd i n uni f or m , di d not draw hi s gun , and d id n o t b lo ck the truck’ s e xi tfr om the ar eaw i th h i s patrol ca r. A f te rh e b r ie f

ly f la s h e d h is b lu e lig h t s , h e le f t h is p a tr o l c a r ’s h ig h
- b e a m s o n in
o rd er t o i l l u m i n at e th e scen e. H e ap p ro ach ed th e m en an d ask e d : “Y o u g u ys o k ay? W hat ar e y ou do i ng he r e s o l a t e ?” t o w hi c h V a l de z r e s po nd e d tha tthe y ha d b ee n fi shi ng . W hen L t . G on za l ez as ke d th e m en i f they had i dent i fi ca t i on , ea ch prod uced a F l ori da dri ver’ s l i ce nse. L t . G on za l ez then asked w ho ow ned t he truck
a nd boa t , a nd V a l de z r e s ponde d tha tthe y w e r e hi s a nd pr o d u c e d r e gi s tr a t i on f or th e tru ck
. V al d ez sai d th at th e b o at reg i strat i o n w as o n th e b o at an d a s k e d if L t. G onz a l e z w a nt e d t o s e e i t . A ttha tpo i n t , P erez vol unt e e r e d t o r e tr i e ve the
r e g i s tr a t i o n f

r o m th e b o a ta n d a s k e d i f Lt
. G o n z a l e z w a n t e d t o c o me w i th h i m. A ft er b o ard i n g th e b o at , P erez b eg an l o o k in g fo r th e reg i strat i o n d o cu m en t s. U nabl e t o fi nd th em , he a sked for V al dez’ s hel p, w ho , i n turn i nform ed P er ez that t h e p ap e r s w e r e i n th e c a b i n . Pe r e z th e n b e g a n s p e a k i n g i n a l o u d v o i c e a s he approached the bo at ’ s c abi n and appeare d “ nervou s” an d “j i t t ery” w hen h e opened the cabi n d oo r. L t . G o n za lez foun d fou r peopl e i nsi de w ho , he l at erl ea rned, w er e C uba n na t i ona l s i l l e ga l l y e nt e r i ng t h e co u n t r y f r om C uba
. T he tw o othe rm e n, w ho L t . G o n zal ez h ad o b serv ed h el p i n g P erez an d V al d ez l o ad th e b o a t, w e re al so6

i l l e g a l a l i e n s f

r o m C u b a . A t th e tim e h e d is c o v e r e d th e C u b a n n a tio n a ls , L t. G onz a l e z e s t i m a t e d tha ta boutf i ve ors i x m i nut e s ha d pa s s e d s i nc e the t i m e he in itia lly ap p r o a c h e d th e m e n . A t n o p o in t h a d P e r e z o ra n y o th e r p e r s o n a s k e d to le a v e a n d L t. G o n z a le z n e v e rto ld th e m e n th a t th e y w e r e n o t f r e e to le a v e . T h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t d e n ie d P e r e z ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s , f in d in g th a t L t. G onz a l e z ’ s i ni t i a l e nc ount e rw i th P e r e z a nd the othe r s w a s c ons e ns ua l , de s pi t e the f a c t th a t h e f

la s h e d h is b lu e lig h ts a n d w a s in u n if o rm . T h e c o u r t r e a s o n e d th a t L t. G o n zal ez d i d n o t t el l th e m en th at th ey w ere b ei n g d et ai n ed an d d i d n o t r e m o v e h is
w e ap o n o r“p e r f

o r m a n y a c t s t h a t w o u ld in d ic a te th e D e f e n d a n ts w e r e d e ta in e d .” T h u s , th e c o u r t f

o u n d th a t th e e n c o u n te rw a s c o n s e n s u a l a n d th e r e w a s n o F o u r th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on. A f te rd e n ia l o f

h is s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n , P e r e z f ile d a p r e - tr ia l m o tio n to

“ stri ke” the go vernm ent ’ s i nt rodu ct i on attri al of hi s 200 2 con vi ct i on for a l i en
s m ugg l i n g a s Fe d
. R. Ev i d
. 4 0 4 ( b ) e v i d e n c e . Pe r e z a r g u e d th a t th e r e w a s no
s i m i l ari t y b et w e e n the e xtr i ns i c a c ta nd the c ur r e ntof f e ns e a nd the r e f

or e , the evi de n ce d id no tt end t o sho w i tw as m ore probabl e thathe engaged in al i en
s m uggl i ng i n the i ns t a ntc a s e . H e a l so u rg ed t h atthe e vi de nc e w a s notof f e r e d f or
a le g itim a te e v id e n tia r y p u rp o s e , b u t r a th e rto s h o w s im p ly th a t h e h a d a p r o p e n s ity t o c om m i tthi s s or tof c r i m e . F i na l l y , he c l a i m e d tha ta ny p roba t i ve va l ue7

attri bu t abl e t o t he fa ctof the pri or conv i ct i on w as un derc utby th e “ l on g t em po ra l gap b etw ee n t he extri nsi c a nd char ged o ff ense s” and w as ou tw eig h ed by the dang er of unf a i rpr e j udi c e. T h e di s tr i c tc our tdi d notrul e on the m ot i on be f or e the s t a r tof tr ia l. A t th e s u b s e q u e n t b e n c h tr ia l, L t. G o n z a le z te s tif ie d c o n s i s t e n tly w ith h is t e s t i m ony a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng. T he gove r nm e nta l s o p resent e d the t es t i m on y of Y am i sl ei dy E st evez -G alin do , on e of the C ub an nat i on al s di sc ov er ed
on P er ez ’ s boat , hi dd en i nsi de th e ca b in
. In Jul y 200 4, she a nd her uncl e, w ho w as
a l s o a C u b a n n a t i o n a l , f l e w f r o m C u b a t o th e B a h a m a s , wh e r e th e y s t a y e d f o rtwo days be f or e l e a r ni ng tha ta bo a tw a s c omi ng i n f r om, a nd r e turni ng t o, the U ni t ed S ta te s . E s te v e z - G a lin d o d is c o v e r e d th a t s h e a n d h e ru n c le m ig h t b e a b le to g a in pa s s a ge on the boa tt o th e U n i t ed S t a t e s i f the y w e nta nd s t ood on a c e r t a i n be a c h,
w ai t ed for the bo at , and o b tained perm i ss i on fr om the capt ai n w hen t he bo at
arri ved. E st evez -G al i nd o w entt o t h e d es ig n ated beac h o n t he day the bo atw as
s uppos e d t o a r r i v e . A f

t e rth e b o a tf

a i l e d t o c o me o n th a td a y , Es t e v e z - G a l i n d o a nd her uncl e s pentthe ni gh ton the beach and conti nu ed t o w ai t . T he bo atappeare d t he nextda y a nd Es t e ve z - G a l i nd o s e c ur e d tw o p l a c e s on i tf orhe ra nd he run c l e. S h e h a d w ith h e rh e rm o th e r ’s F lo r i d a d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e , w h ic h s h e h a d o b ta in e d in C u b a .8

A bo ut thr e e ho ur s a f

t e rl e a vi ng the Ba ha ma s , the bo a tbe ga n t o e xp e r i ence
e ngi ne pr obl e m s a nd E s t e ve z - G a l i ndo a nd the othe rpa s s e ngers si gna l e d t o pa s s i ng b o a ts u n til th e b o a tp ilo te d b y P e r e z a n d V a ld e z s to p p e d . T h e C u b a n n a tio n a ls to ld P e r e z a nd V a l de z tha tthe y w e r e f r om M i a m i an d tha tthe y ha d be e n f i s hi ng. E st evez -G al i nd o t es t i fi ed thatthe capt ai n o f the bo atfro m the B aham as had i nstruct ed her thati f quest i on ed, she s ho ul d say thatshe h ad b een fi shi ng . W hen P er ez or V al d ez as ked t he al i ens w here they w ant ed t o g o, the al i ens r es po nd ed that th e y w a n te d to g e t to s h o r e - - ju s t “to le a v e [ th e m ] o n la n d .” I n r e s p o n s e to qu e s t i o n s f

r o m Pe r e z a n d V a l d e z , Es t e v e z - G a l i n d o b e c a me v e r y n e r v o u s a nd began t o cry . A l tho ug h P er ez or V ald ez as ked som e of the ot her pas se ng er s i f they ha d i de nt i f

i c a t i on, the y di d nota s k E st e ve z - G a l i ndo f orhe ri de nt i f

i c a t i on. E s t e v e z - G a l i n d o e s t i ma t e d s h e w a s o n th e b o a t c ap t a i n e d b y Pe r e z a n d V a l de z f or le s s th a n tw o h o u r s b e f

o r e th e y a r r iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . Sp e c i a l A g e n tPa b l o M i l i a n o f th e U n i t e d S t a t e s I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E nf or c e m e ntt e s t i f

i e d t h a t , i n 2002, he pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a n e a r l i e ri nve s t i ga t i on in v o lv in g P e r e z . S p e c ia l A g e n t M ilia n s ta te d th a t , w h e n h e in te r v ie w e d P e r e z in 2002, P e r e z c l a i m e d tha the ha d be e n on a r e s c ue m i ss i on, br i ngi ng f ue l t o a stra nd ed bo atthathad o nb oard a num ber of C u b an n atio n al s, en rout e t o t he U ni t ed S t a t e s . P e r e z a nd thr e e c o- de f e nda nt s w e r e s ubs e que nt l y c h arg ed i n a m ul t i
- c ount9

i n d i c tm e n twi th c o n s p i r a c y a n d a t t e m p t e d a l i e n s m u g g l i n g , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 2 4 (a )( 2 )( A ). P e re z p led g u il ty to o n e c o u n t o f a li en sm u g g li n g . O v erP er ez ’s obj e c t i o n , the gove r nm e nti ntr oduc e d a c e r t i f i e d c opy of

P e r e z ’ s 2002 c onvi c t i on d u r in g th e te s t i m o n y o f S p e c ia l A g e n t J o h n R a m o s o f th e U .S . B o r d e rP a tr o l. S peci a l A ge ntRa mos a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tM a the s on H a mm oc k w a s no ta de s i gn at ed p o r t o f e n tr y in to th e c o u n tr y . A t th e c l o s e o f th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c a s e , Pe r e z mo v e d f o r a j u d g m e ntof
a c qui t t a l pur s ua ntt o F e d. R
. C ri m . P
. 2 9 (a ) , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d. T he de f en se t h en r e s t e d w i thoutpr e s e nt i ng a ny e vi de nc e a nd r e ne w e d i t s R ul e 29
m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc o u rt , s i t t i ng a s tr i e rof f a c t , f ound P e r e z notgui l ty of C ount 1 , c o n s p ir a c y to s m u g g le a lie n s , a n d g u ilty o f C o u n ts 2 th r o u g h 7 , s p e c if ic a lly fi nd i ng tha t he a c t e d w i th r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c t tha t the pa s s e ng e rs w er e
a lie n s w h o w e r e n o t a u th o r iz e d to e n te rth e U n i t e d S ta te s . T h e tr ia l c o u r t, how e ve r , a c qui t t e d c o- de f e nda ntV a l de z on al l c ount s , obs e r vi ng tha tthe
c i r c um s t a nt i a l ev i d en ce, a s i tr e l a t e d t o V a l de z , w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h tha the
ac ted in re ck less d isre g ar d o f th e p as se n g er s’ statu s. T h e c o u rt n o ted th at P er ez ’s pr i orc onvi c t i on puthi m on not i c e tha t“ i t ’ s note nough s i m pl y t o t a ke s om e body aboard and b ri ng them ov erhere , and t he fa i l ure t o d o m o re , th e fai l ure t o i nq ui re further .
. . do es l ea d m e t o con cl ud e thathe di d acti n rec kl es s di sr egar d. ”10

P e r e z m ove d f

ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui t t a l , a r gui ng tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o sup po rtthe fi nd i ng thathe ac t ed w i th rec kl es s di sr eg ar d . T he di stri ct
c our tde ni e d the m ot i o n w i thoutf ur the rc om m e nta nd s e nt e nc e d P e r e z t o a 60-
m onth t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. II. F i rst , P erez arg u es th e d i stri ctco u rterre d b y d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. T h ere a r e thr e e br oa d c a t e gor i e s of pol i c e - c i t i z e n e nc ount e r s f orpurpos e s of

our F our th A m e ndm e nta na l y s i s : ( 1) pol i c e - c i t i z e n e xc ha nge s i nvol vi ng n o c oe r c i on or d et en t i o n ; (2 ) b ri ef sei zu res o r i n v est i g at o ry d et en t i o n s; an d (3 ) fu l l -scal e arrests. U ni t ed S t at es v. H as t am ori r, 88 1 F
. 2d 15 51 , 15 56 (11t h C i r. 19 89 ). T he di stri ct courtfoun d t hatthe i nst antca se i nv ol ved t he fi rs ttyp e, a c on se nsual encoun t er . W e have expl ai ned t hat th e f ir s t c a te g o r y o f

c o n s e n s u a l e n c o u n te r s d o e s n o t i m p l i c a te [ F ]o u r th [A ]m en dm entsc rut i ny. T he se cond ca t egory i nv ol ves r ea sonabl y bri ef e n c ount e r s i n w hi c h a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve be l i e ve d tha the o rs h e w a s n o t f

r e e to le a v e . I n o r d e rto ju s tif y s u c h a [ F ]o u r th [A ] m endm ent“ se i zure , ” the go vernm entm ustshow a r ea so n ab le , a r tic u la b le s u s p ic i o n t h a t th e p e r s o n h a s c o m m itte d o ris a b o u t to c o m m it a c r im e . F in a lly , w h e n th e to ta lity o f c ir c u m s t a n c e s in d ic a te thatan encoun t erhas bec o m e t oo i nt rusi ve t o b e c l as si fi ed as a bri ef s e iz u r e , th e e n c o u n te ris a n a r r e s t a n d p r o b a b le c a u s e is r e q u ir e d
. U ni t ed S t at es v. E spi no sa -G uerr a, 80 5 F
. 2d 15 02 , 15 06 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ) ( i nt ernal
c ita tio n s o m itte d )
.11

T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d: L aw en fo rc em en t o ff

icer s d o n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s pr ohi bi t i on of

unr e a s ona bl e s e i z ur e s m e rel y by appr oa c hi ng i ndi v i dua l s on the s tr e e tori n othe rpubl i c pl a c e s a nd put t i ng qu es t i on s t o t hem i f they a re w i l l i ng t o l i st en. E ven w hen l aw enf or c e me ntof

f i c e r s ha ve no ba s i s f ors us pe c t i ng a pa r t i cul ar i n d i v i d u al , th ey m ay p o se q u e s tio n s, ask fo r i d en t i fi cat i o n , an d req u est c ons e ntt o s e a r c h l ugga ge –pr ov i d ed t he y do noti nduc e c oope r a t i on by c o e r c iv e m e a n s . I f

a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld f e e l f r e e to te r m in a te the e nc ount e r , the n he ors he ha s notbe e n s e i z e d. U ni t e d St a t e s v . D r a y t o n , 5 3 6 U
. S. 1 9 4 , 2 0 0
- 0 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d a nd i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i t t ed). Indeed, “ [t ] he m er e f ac tthata l aw enforce m entoffi ce r
ap p r o a c h e s a n in d iv id u a l a n d s o id e n tif ie s h im s e lf

, w ith o u t m o r e , d o e s n o t r e s u lt in
a s e i z ur e . S e e B a ke r , 290 F
. 3d a t1278 ( c i t i ng F l or i da v. R oy e r , 460 U
. S
. 491, 497 (198 3)). M oreover, un der c on tro ll in g cas e l aw , the si m pl e a ctof po l i ce que s t i oni ng doe s notc ons t i tut e a s e i z ur e . S ee F l or i da v. B os t i c k, 501 U
. S
. 429, 43 4 (19 91 ). F ac t ors r el evantt o t hi s i nq ui ry incl ud e, am on g o ther thi ng s: “ w hether
a c i t i z e n’ s pa th i s bl oc ke d ori m pe de d; w he the ri de nt i fi cat i o n i s r e t a i ne d; the
s us pe c t ’ s a ge , e duc a t i o n an d i nt e l l i ge nc e ; the l e ngth of the s us pe c t ’ s de t e nt i on a nd que s t i oni ng; the num be rof pol i c e of

f i c e r s pr e s e nt ; the di s pl a y of w e apons ; a ny p h y s ic a l to u c h in g o f

th e s u s p e c t, a n d th e la n g u a g e a n d t o n e o f v o ic e o f th e p o lic e .” U ni t ed S t at es v. D e L a R osa, 92 2 F
. 2d 67 5, 6 7 8 (1 1 th C ir. 19 91 ). A se i zure occurs fo r F ou rth A m endm entpu rposes , ho w ever , “ ‘ on l y w hen, by m ea ns of ph ys i ca lWe acc o rd “l i tt le weight” to the unremarka ble fact that Lt. Gonzalez was in uniform and 2 had a ho lst e re d f

ire arm . Cf

. D ra y ton , 5 36 U.S
. at 20 4-05 (h oldingthat of fi c e rs ’ disp lay

of the ir ba dg e s , a s w e l la s th ep r e s e n c eo r l a c k o f a un i f o r m , an d h o l s t e r e d f i r e ar ma l ls h o u l d

“ h av el itt le we ight in th e analysis ,” a s th epu bli c kn ow s th at mo st o ff

ic e rs arearm e d a

nd many arere quire d to wea r uniforms). 12 fo rc e o r a sh o w o f a u th o rity, [a p er so n ’s] fre e d o m o f m o v em en t i s r es train ed .’ ” C rai g v . S i ngl e t a r y , 127 F
. 3d 1030, 1041 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M endenh al l , 44 6 U
. S
. 54 4, 55 5 (19 80 ))
. H er e, w e r ea dily concl ud e the ci rc um st ance s i nd i ca t e onl y aconsensual
e n c o u n te ra n d , a c c o r d in g ly , d id n o t r e s u lt in a F o u r th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . L t. G onz a l e z ’ s unc ontr ove r t e d t est i m ony s how e d tha the appr oa c he d P e r e z ’ s gr oup
a nd a s k e d i f

th e y w e r e o k a y , g i v e n th e r o u g h w e a th e ra n d l a t e h o u ro f t he
e nc ount e r . W he n he i nqui r e d w he the rthe y ha d i d ent i f i c a t i on, butdi d not sp ec ifical ly as k to se e it, all o f th e m en “au to m atically p ro d u ce d ” F lo rid a d riv er ’s lic e n s e s . H e s p o k e w ith th e m in a “c o n v e r s a t i o n a l ” to n e a n d , a lth o u g h h e w a s in uni f or m , hi s f

i r e a r m r e m a i ne d hol s t e r e d. L t . G onz a l e z br i e f l y f l a s hed hi s bl ue 2 l i ght s , butonl y t o i de nt i f y hi m s e l f

a s a pol i c e of

f i c e rbe c a us e he a r r i ve d atthe
sc en e in an u n m ar k ed ca r . N o tab ly, at n o p o in t d id L t. G o n za lez b lo ck V ald ez ’s tru ck o r o th erw i se o b stru ctP erez, V al d ez, o r th e o th ers’ ex i tf r o m th e a r e a . Ital so
w a s u n d i s p u t e d th a td u r i n g th e e n c o u n t e rPe r e z o f f e r e d t o g e tth e r e g i s tr a t i o n f r om th e b o a t, in v ite d L t. G o n z a le z a b o a r d th e b o a t, a n d th e n p r o c e e d e d v o lu n ta r ily toTh is r uleprov ide s: 3 Evidenceof other crimes, wrong s, or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c haracter of a per son in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may , however, be a dmi ssiblefo r o ther pur po se s, su c h a s pro of

of motive , opp or

tunity, intent, prepa ration, plan, knowledg e, identity , or absence of mistake or ac cident, provide d that upon reque st by

the ac cused, theprose cut ion in a criminal ca se shall provide rea sonable noticein advanc e of trial, . . . of the g eneral nature of any such evidence it intends to i ntroduceat trial. Fe d. R. Evid. 404(b).
13 o p e n th e c a b in d o o r , w h i c h le d to th e d is c o v e r y o f th e C u b a n n a tio n a ls . L t. G o n z a le z a s k e d n e ith e rto b o a r d th e b o a t n o rto s e e th e in te r io ro f th e c a b in
. O n thi s r e c or d, vi e w i ng the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the r e w a s no “ s how of a uthor i ty tha tc om m uni c a t e [ d] t o the i ndi vi dua l tha thi s l i be r ty [ w a s ] r e s tr a i ne d,
m e a ni ng he [ w a s ] notf r e e t o l e a v e. ” U n i t ed S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 290 F
. 3d 1276, 1278 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e r e w a s n o F o u r th A m e n d m e n t “ s e iz u r e ” b e c a u s e a r e a s o n a b le pe r s on w oul d ha ve f

e l tf r e e t o l e a ve . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby d e n y in g P e r e z ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e d is c o v e r e d in th e c o u r s e o f t h is

“ consensual encoun t er . ” N e xt , P e r e z cl ai m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pe r m i s s i bl y r e l i e d on the
e vi de nc e of

hi s 2002 c onvi c t i on f

ora l i e n s m uggl i ng, pur s ua ntt o F e de ral R u l e of E vi de nc e 404( b) , t o fi n d tha the ha d c om m i t t e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e i n a know i ng 3 f a s hi on orw i th r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the C uba n na t i ona l s ’ i l l e ga l i m m i gr a t i on14

st atus. H e c on t ends thatthe pri or conv i ct i on se rv ed o nl y t o sho w hi s c ri m i nal prop ensi ty. W e di sa gree . R ul e 404( b ) p e r m i t s the a dm i s s i on of pr i or - ba d- a c t s e vi de nc e t o s how
m ot i ve , p rep a r a t i on, know l e dge , a nd i nt e nt , a s w e l l a s a n ongoi ng s c he m e orpl a n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L ehder-Ri vas, 95 5 F
. 2d 15 10 , 15 15 -16 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r os s , 928 F
. 2d 1 030, 1047- 48 ( 11th C i r . 1991)
. I n r e vi e w i ng 40 4(b) deci si on s, w e app l y athree -part t es tfor a dm i ss i bi l i ty of s uch evi dence: (1) the evi dence m ustbe re l evan t to an issu e other than t he defendant ’ s c hara ct er ; ( 2) the r e m us tbe s uf f i c i e ntpr oof

s o tha tthe f

a c t f i nde rc oul d f

i n d tha tthe de f e nda ntc om m i t t e d the e xtr i ns i c a c t ; a nd ( 3) the e vi de nc e m us tpos s e s s pr oba t i ve
va l ue tha ti s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d b y u n d u e pr e j udi c e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e r n ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. T h e e v id e n c e o f

P e r e z ’s p r io ra lie n - s m u g g lin g c o n v ic tio n w a s r e l e v a n t to
e s t a bl i s h hi s s t a t e of

m i nd w i th resp ec tt o the c ons pi r a c y of f e ns e , a s w e l l a s t o the si x sub st ant i ve al i en-s m u g g li ng coun t s. “ O ne of the el em ent s of c on spi ra cy that the prosecut i on m u st es tabl i sh beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bti s a n i nt ent i on t o further th e p u rp o ses o f th e co n sp i racy. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . C o st a, 9 4 7 F
. 2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 5 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ). W h en a d efen d an tch arg ed w i th c o n sp i racy en t ers a p l ea o f n o tg u i l ty,
as i n t hi s c as e, he m akes i n ten t a m ater ial i ss ue i n t he ca se . S ee i d. ; U ni t ed S t at esPerez has consistently and repeate dly

argued, both i n this Court and at trial, that he did not 4 know about the aliens’ illeg al status. Thus, the instant case d oes not involve “a mereplea of

not guilty ,” which, in a

ny event, under our c ontrolling pre cedent is enough to satisfy the sec ond prong of the40 4(b) te st. Cf

. M atth e ws , 4 31 F .3 d at 13 14 -1 5 ( Tjofl at, J ., c on c ur ring) ( dis c us singfirs t prongof Circuit’s thre e- p art test for admissibili ty of prior- crime evidenceunder 404(b) and admissibili ty

of such evidencebased solely on plea of

not guilty

in conspiracy

case ). 15 v. D e l ga do, 56 F
. 3d 1357, 1365 ( 11th C i r . 1995)
. P e r e z di d not“ affi rm a t i ve l y t a ke th e is s u e o f

in te n t o u t o f

c o n t e n t i o n b y s tip u la tin g th a t [ h e ] p o s s e s s e d th e r e q u is ite i nt e nt . ” C os t a , 947 F
. 2d a t925; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t at es v . M at the w s , 431 F
. 3d 1296, 1311 ( 11 t h C i r . 2005) ( “ E vi de nc e of s uc h e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e a s m a y be p ro b at i v e o f a d efen d an t ’ s st at e o f m i n d i s ad m i ssi b l e u n l ess [th e d efen d a n t]
a f f i r m a t i ve l y t a ke s the i s s ue of i nt e nt o u tof

the c a s e . ” ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons om i t t e d) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) )
. In f a c t , by hi s the ory of

de f e ns e - - tha the di d notknow the al i ens’ i l l egal st atus -- he expres sl y m ade hi s kn ow l edge and in ten t a fo ca l p o in t o f th e c a s e , p la in ly m a k in g th e e v id e n c e o f h i s p r io rc o n v ic tio n a d m is s ib le f o rn o n - p r o p e n s ity p u rp o s e s . M o r e o v e r , th e p r io rc o n v ic tio n w a s r e le v a n t to 4 P e r e z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe gove r nm e ntdi d notc a r r y i t s bu rd en o f est a bl i s hi ng tha the br oughtthe a l i e ns t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s “ know i n g o r i n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c ttha t[ the al i en s] ha [ d] notr e c e i ve d pr i orof f i c i a l a uthor i z a t i on t o c om e t o,
e nt e r , orr e s i de i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” S e e 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1242( a )(2 ). A cco rd i n gl y , the f ir s t p r o n g o f

J e r n ig a n is s a tis f

ie d h e r e .The statute provides the following , inter alia: 5 16 T he f a c t of the pr i or c onvi c t i on f ul l y s a t i s f

i e d the s e c ond pro n g o f Je r ni ga n. S e e D e lg a d o , 5 6 F
. 3 d a t 1 3 6 5 ( f in d in g s e c o n d p r o n g o f th e R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) a n a ly s is sat i sfi ed w h ere “[t ]h e e x tr in si c acti n tro d u ced ag ai n st[th e d efen d an t ] i n v o l v es a
c o n v i ct i o n ”)
. F i na l l y , w e a r e s a t i s f i e d the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on
w hen it d et erm i ned t he prob at i ve val ue of P er ez ’ s pri or conv i ct i on , w hi ch i nv ol ved
a nothe ra l i e n- s m uggl i ng of f e ns e an d t ook pl a c e l e s s tha n tw o y e a r s be f or e the i nst antoffe nse, ou tw ei gh ed i t s pre j ud i ci al ef

fect. C f. U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z, 42 6 F
. 3d 13 44 , 13 54 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( hi gh l i gh t i ng the “ hi gh l y probat i ve nature”
o f 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h d e f e n d a n t’s in te n t w h e r e t h e r e e x is ts “[ a ] s im ila r ity be tw e e n the othe ra c ta nd a c ha rg ed o ff e ns e ” )
. T hi s de t e r m i na t i on l i e s w i thi n the di s c r e t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our ta nd “ c a l l s fo r a com m on s e ns e a s s e s s m e ntof a l l the
c i r c um s t a nc e s s ur r oundi ng the e xtr i ns i c of f e nse, i n c l udi ng pr os e c ut or i a l ne e d,
ov er al l si m i l ar i ty betw ee n t he extri nsi c a ctan d th e ch ar ged o ff ense , as w el l as t e m por a l r e m ot e ne s s . ” J e r ni ga n, 341 F
. 3d a t1282 ( i nt ern al q u ot a t i on m a r ks a nd
c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n s h o r t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in adm i t t i ng the pri or conv i ct i on as 40 4(b) evi dence. F i na l l y , P e r e z a r gue s the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o su p p or thi s c onvi c t i on
u n d er 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) (B )(i i i ). A s p arto f i t s case, th e g o v ern m en tm u st 5§ 1 32 4. Br ing ingin a nd harboringc e r ta in a lie ns

(a) Criminal penalties

. . . . (2) Any person who, knowing or i n rec kless disreg ard of the fact that an alien has not re c e ive d p ri or

of fi c ial a uth orizatio n to c ome to, e nter, or re sidein t

heUnite d St ate s, bri n gs t o or attempts to bringto the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, re g ardle ss of any

official action which may later be taken with respec t to such alien shall, for

each alien in respec t to whom a violation of this paragraph oc curs- -

. . . . (B ) in the ca se of-
-

. . . . (iii) an off

ense in whic h the alien is not upon arrival i mm ed i at el y brought and p r e s e nt e d t o ana p p ro p ri at ei mm i grat i o no f f i c e r ata d e s i gn at e d

p o rto f e ntr y, be fine d under T i tle 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the c ase of a first or se cond violati o no f

s u b p ara gra p h( B ) ( ii i) , n o t m o r eth an1 0 ye ar s , in th ec a s eo f

a f ir s t or second violation of subpa ragraph ( B) (i) or ( B) (ii), not less than 3 nor morethan 10 ye ars , a nd fo r a ny oth e r v iol atio n, no t le ss t ha n 5 no r m oretha

n 1 5 ye ars . 18 U.S.C. § 1324. 17 pr ove the de f

e nda ntc onduc t e d hi m s e l f “ know i ng ori n r e c kl e s s d i srega r d of the f a c ttha ta n a l i e n ha s notr e c e i ve d pr i orof f i c i a l a uthor i z a t i on t o c om e t o, e nt e r , or
re si d e in th e U ni t ed S t at es . ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 32 4(a) (2)( B )( i i i ). O n app ea l , P er ez
c ont e nds tha tthe gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi d en ce w a s de f i c i e nta nd s how e d, nottha the
ac t ed w i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o h i s pas se ng er s’ st atus , b u t r ather thathe ac t ed
w i th “ due di l i ge nc e a nd c a ut i on” a f t e r the C uba ns pr e s e nt e d hi m w i t h F l or i da18

d ri vers ’ l i ce nses and h e quest i on ed them abou tw here they w er e f rom , t o w hi ch th e y r e p lie d M ia m i. A ga i n, i n r e vi e w i ng a d i st ri ct co u rt ’ s d en i al of a m ot i on f

orj udgm e nt of
a c q u itta l, w e m u s t v ie w th e f a c ts , a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s th e r e f

r o m , in the l i g h t m os tf

a vor a bl e t o the gove r nm e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a ns e n, 262 F
. 3d 1217, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 2001 ). O u r P at t e r n J ur y I ns truc t i ons a r e i ns truc t i ve t o the i ns t a nta na l ysi s a nd pr ovi de the f ol l ow i ng de f

i ni t i on i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng vi ol a t i ons
o f 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1 )(A )(i i ), p ro scri b i n g u n l aw fu l l y tran sp o rt i n g i l l eg al al i en s: T o a c tw i th “ r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” m e a ns t o b e a w a r e of , but c o n s c io u s ly a n d c a r e le s s ly ig n o r e , f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s c l e a r ly i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe pe r s on tr a nsp o r t e d w a s a n a l i e n w ho ha d e nt e r e d or r e m a i n e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f l a w. E le v e n th C ir c u it P a tte r n J u r y I n s tru c tio n s ( C r im in a l) a t 8 3 .2 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s is
a dde d) ; s e e a l s o i d. a t83. 3 ( ut i l i z i ng s a m e de f i ni t i on of

“ r e c kl e s s di s r e gard ” f or
v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) )
. M o reo v er, w e h av e ap p ro v ed th e f o llo w in g d efi n i t i o n o f th e “ reck l ess di sr egar d” el em entof tra nspo rt i ng i l l egal al i ens, i n v i ol at i on of § 1 32 4(a) (1)( A )( i i ): T he phr a s e “ r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the f a c t , ” a s i tha s be e n us e d f r om tim e to tim e in th e s e in s tru c tio n s , m e a n s d e lib e r a t e in d if f e r e n c e to fa ct s w hi ch, i f c o n sid er ed and w ei gh ed i n a re as on abl e m anner, i nd i ca t e the hi gh es tprob ab il it y thatthe al l eged al i ens w er e i n fac t al i en s an d w ere i n th e U n i t ed S t at es u n l aw fu l l y.In its response to Pere z’s moti on for a j udgment of ac quittal, the government argued that 6 “Esteve z-Galindo’s testimony that the Cuban aliens told the def endants to takethem ‘any

where, for 19 U ni t ed S t at es v. Z l at og ur, 27 1 F
. 3d 10 25 , 10 29 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t a t e s v. U r e s t i
- H e r n a n d e z , 9 6 8 F. 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) )
. W e f i n d our i nt e r pr e t a t i ons of

t he s a me “ r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d ” t e r mi n o l o g y i n §§ 13 24 (a )( 1)(A )( i i ) a nd (i i i)
-- b o th i n o ur P att ern Jury I nstruct i on s a nd i n Z l at og ur -

- i n s t r u c tiv e to o u rin s ta n t a n a ly s is o f § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( iii) . I n d e e d , it is a w e lle s t a b l i s h e d c a n o n o f s t a tu t o r y i n t e rp r e t a t i o n th a t i d e n t i c a l w o r d s u s e d i n the s a me
s t a tu t e a r e i n t e n d e d t o h a v e th e s a me me a n i n g . U n i t e d St a t e s v . D BB, I n c . , 180 F
. 3d 1279, 1285 ( 11th C i r . 1999)
. A c c or di ngl y , w e i nt e rpr e tsu b s e c t i on 1324( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i i ) ’ s “ reck l e s s di s r e ga r d” t e r m i nol ogy by r e f e r e nc e t o our in te rp r e ta tio n o f

th e s a m e w o r d s in s u b s e c tio n 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) a n d ( iii)
. H e r e , the gove r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d a m pl e ev i de nc e of “ f a c t s a nd
c i rcu m st an ce s ” f

r om w hi c h a r e a s ona bl e tr i e rof f a c tc oul d c onc l ude be y ond a
re as on abl e dou bt thatP er ez ac t ed kn ow i ng l y or w i th rec kl es s di sr egar d o f the fa ct t ha thi s pa s s e ng e r s w e r e i na dmi s s i bl e a l i e ns . Pe r e z a nd V a l de z a l l ow e d Est evez G al i nd o an d th e others t o b oard thei r boat
. W hi l e s om e of the al i ens pre se nt ed i de nt i f i c a t i on t o P e r e z a nd V a l de z , E st ev ez- G a l i ndo w a s nota s ke d t o do s o a nd,
w hen asked w here i n M i am i they w ant ed t o g o, the p as se n g er s s i m pl y i nd i ca t ed th e y w a n te d to r e a c h “la n d .” P e r e z ap p a r e n tly m a d e n o e f f o r t to a s s i s t t h e c ap ta in 6them only to leave us on la

nd,’ [was] a clear

ref erence to this country ’s wet f oot/dry foot immigration policies with respec t to Cuban aliens.” Gover nment’s Response to De fenda nt’s Motion for Judgment of A cquittal at 12. 20 of the f i r s tboa ta f

t e rthe boa tbr oke dow n ort o rep o rttha ti tw a s s t i l l s tr a nde d, al tho ug h t he capt ai n o f thatbo atst ay ed on the al l egedl y m al functi o n ing cra ftaf t er th e o th e r s w e r e tr a n s f

e r r e d to P e r e z ’s b o a t la te a t n ig h t. A f t erw ard s, at M ath eso n H am m o ck , d u ri n g h i s l at e n i g h t en co u n t er w i th L t. G onz a l e z , P e r e z a c t e d ne r vous l y an d fai l ed t o r e ve a l tha tthe r e w a s a ny one i n the
cabi n o f the 28 -f

oo tfi shi ng bo atbefore Lt. G o nzal ez di sc ov er ed them
. N or w as the r e the s l i ght e s ti ndi c a t i on a ny one on the boa tha d be e n f i s hi ng. F i na l l y , i n 2002, P er ez w as conv i ct ed of al i en sm u gg l i ng , an offens e thatal so re qu i re d t hathe ac t know i ngl y orw i th r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d of the s t a tus of

a l i e ns . I n di s t i ngui s hi ng V a l de z ’ s c onduc tf

r om P e r e z ’ s c onduc t , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound: M r . P e r e z i s in a d if

f e r e n t p o s itio n f

r o m M r . V a ld e z b e c a u s e o f h is pri o r co n v i c t i on a nd be c a us e a ttha tpoi nt , upon hi s c onvi c t i on a nd upon hi s pl e a i n a ve ry si m i l a rc a s e , he w a s puton not i c e tha ti t ’ s not enou gh si m pl y t o t ake s om ebod y ab o ar d and b ri ng them ov erhere , a n d th e f a i lu r e to d o m o r e , th e f a ilu r e to in q u ir e f

u r th e r , o th e rth a n to lo o k a t s o m e d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e s [ ,] in h is p o s itio n a n d u n d e rt h e s e f a c ts d o e s le a d m e to c o n c lu d e th a t h e d id a c t in r e c k le s s d is r e g a r d
. . . . O n th is r e c o r d , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, s ittin g a s th e f in d e ro f f a c t, r e a c h e d a r e a s o n a b le
c onc l us i on. W e a r e s a t i s f i e d tha ta r e a s ona bl e f

a c t f i nde rc oul d fi n d , b ey ond a ny
r e a s ona bl e d o u b t , tha tP e r e z kne w tha thi s pa s s e nge r s w e r e i na dm i s s i bl e a l i e ns or21

reck l essl y i g n o red fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces i n d i cat i n g th atth ey w e r e. A cco rd i n g l y, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rb y d e n y in g th e m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. W e a r e unpe r s ua de d by P e r e z ’ s othe rc ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the
ev i d en ce . P e r e z su g g est s th ath e w as en t i t l ed t o a j u d g m en to f acq u i t t al b ecau se L t . G onz a l e z d i d notpr ovi de hi m w i th a n “ i m m e di a t e oppor tuni ty ” t o pr e s e ntthe ille g a l a l i e n s to a n im m ig r a tio n o f f ic ia l. H is a r g u m e n t is p r e m is e d o n a f a u lty
re a di ng of

the s t a tut ory l a ng ua ge , w hi c h c on t a i ns no r e qu i r e me nttha tl aw
e n f o r c e m e n t p r o v id e a n “im m e d ia te o p p o r t u n ity ” to p r e s e n t ille g a l a lie n s to i m m i gr a t i on of

f i c i a l s a f t e re ntr y a ta n una uthor i z e d l oc a t i on s uc h a s M a the s on H a m m o c k . R a th e r , th e p la i n l a n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te r e q u ir e s th e d e f e n d a n t to i m m edi at el y bri ng and pre se nt an al i en t o i m m i grat i on offi ci al s “ at a d es i gn at ed por tof e ntr y . ” A ccor di ng t o S pe c i a l A ge ntR a m os ’ s t e s t i m ony , a nd pur s ua ntt o 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 .4 , M a th e s o n H a m m o c k is n o t s u c h a p o r t. M or e ove r , the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y of 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1324 i ndi c a t e s tha ts ubs e c t i on (a )( 2) w a s a dd e d i n 19 86 t o c l a r i f y tha t “ a pe r s on w ho kn ow i ng l y tr a ns po rt s a n
un do cum ent ed al i en t o any pl ac e i n t he U ni t ed S t at es w i l l be subject to cr i m i nal prosec ut i on i f thatpe rson kn ew the al i en w as un do cum ent ed or act ed w i th w i l ful [ ] bl i nd ness concerni ng the al i en’ s i m m i grat i on statu s. ” H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99 -682 (I ), at 66 ( 1986) a s r e pr i nt e d i n 1986 U
. S
. C
. C
. A
. N
. 5649, 5 6 7 0 ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. T heMoreover, even if the statute contained a provision allowing for presentation of an illeg al 7 alien to immigration officials af ter entry at a non- designated por

t, no evidenc e at trial supports the notion that Perez was on his way to immi gratio n auth o ri t i es when Lt. Gonzalez observed him at Matheson Hammock. Indeed, Perez’s nervous behavior a nd failureto inform Lt. G onzalez of the al ien s ’ p r e s e n c e , a lo n g w it h th e unu s u a l h o ur o f th e la n ding an d ro u gh w e ath e r , s u g g e st just the opposite
-- th at P er ez had no intention to present the six Cubans to i mmigration authorities and instead wa s trying to c onceal the aliens from Lt. Gonzalez. 22 a m e ndm e nt s s pe c i f

i c a l l y t a r ge t e d a s i tua t i on s uc h a s the pr e s e ntone by “i n cr ea s[ i ng ] the penal t i es for .
. . kn ow i ng l y bri ng i ng al i ens, w hether docum ent ed
or no tand w hether a n ent ry occurs or no t , to an y p l ac e i n t he U ni t ed S t at es ot her th a n d e s ig n a te d p o r ts o f e n tr y .” I d . ( e m p h a s is a d d e d )
. U n d e rP e r e z ’s r e a d in g o f th e s ta tu te , a n a l i e n s m u g g le rc o u ld a v o id prosec ut i on so l on g as he d id n o t e nt erata portof entry and, i f c augh t , cl ai m ed t hathe w as on hi s w a y t o a de s i gn a t e d po r t . Thi s i nt e rpr e t a t i on no t on l y l e a ds t o an
a b s u r d r e s u lt, w h ic h , w h e n in te rp r e tin g s ta tu to r y la n g u a g e , w e s h o u ld a v o id , if pos s i bl e , D e w s nup v. T i m m , 502 U
. S
. 410, 427 ( 1992), b u t al s o i s c ontr a r y t o the l egi sl at i ve hi st ory of § 13 42 , i ncl ud i ng the 19 86 am en d m en t s w hi ch added subsec t i on (a )( 2) and i ncre as ed the penal t i es for a n o ff ense l i ke the i nst anton e. S i m pl y pu t , f

r om ou r r e a di ng , the pr e s e nt a t i on r e qu i r e me nt i s gr ou nd e d on e nt ry at “a d e s ig n a te d p o r t o f

e n tr y .” 7 U p o n carefu l rev i ew o f th e r eco rd o n ap p eal an d co n si d erat i o n o f th e p art i es’ bri ef s, w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or and affi rm P er ez ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . A F F I R M E D .23