N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AR TUR O ASTOR GA-GONZALEZ, AKA Arturo Astorga -Gonz a le s, AKA Arturo Gonz a l e z Astorga , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10431

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-01089-DC B
HC E-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 2, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, C A LLAHAN, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Arturo Astorga -Gonz a le z (“ Astorga ” ), ha ving be e n pre viously re m ove d from the Unite d State s, sought to re e nte r using a le tte r from

im m igrat ion se rvic e s sta ting tha t he ha d a n a ppointm e nt in Rive rside , C a lifornia to re pla c e his re side nt 

# FIL ED D EC 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.a lie n c a

rd. He wa s c onvic te d of atte m pte d ille ga l re e ntry

whe n the jury

did not be lie ve his c l a im

tha t five da y s be fore his a

tte m p t to re e nte r, borde r gua

rds told him tha t he c ould le ga lly

re e nte r. On a

p pe a l, he argue s tha

t: (a ) he wa s e ntitle d to
an e ntra pm e nt by e stoppe l instruc tion; (b) a gove rnm e nt a ge nt wa s im prope rly
a llowe d to a d dre ss a

n e le m e nt of thec h arge d offe nse ; (c ) the prose c utor m issta te d the re quisiteme n s re a e le m e nt in he r c losing a rgum e nt; a

nd (d) his 78-month
se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . W e find none of the c onte ntions pe rsua sive and a ffirm

his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . 1 1. B e c a use Astorga

did not re que st a

n e ntra pm e nt by e s toppe l instruc tion in the d istric t c o urt, his c la i m is re vie we d for pla i n e rror. Se eUnite d State s v . Be ar , 439 F.3d 565, 568 (9th C ir. 2006). The re are five e le m e nts to thea ffirm ative de fe nse of e ntra

p m e nt by e stoppe l: “ (1) an a

uthoriz e d gove rnm e nt offic i a l
e m powe re d to re nde r the c la im e d e rrone ous a dvic e , (2) who ha s be e n m a de aware of a ll the re le va

nt historic a l fa c ts, (3) a ffirm ative ly told him the prosc ribe d c onduc t wa s pe rm issible , (4) tha

t he re lie d on thefa lse inform ation, a nd (5) tha t his re lia nc e wa s re a sona

ble .” Unite d State

s v . Batte r je e , 361 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l c ita

tions a nd quota tion m a rks om itte d).

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd proc e d ura l history , we do not re sta

te the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa ry to e xp la in our de c i sion. 2Astorga argue s tha

t “ e ithe r the distric t

c ourt c om

m itte d re ve rsible pla in e rror by fa iling to instruct the jury sua sponte on the a ffirm ative de fe nse of e ntra pm e nt by e s toppe l, or de fe nse c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to re que s t suc h a n instruc tion.” 2 This a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use Astorga

did not pre se nt a

n a d e quate fa c t ua l ba sis for theinstruc tion. The re wa s no e vide nc e tha t he fully inform e d the gua rds of his situa

tion, or tha

t the gua rds a ffirm ative ly

told him he c ould re e nte r the U nite d State s. M ore o ve r, it doe s not a ppe ar that he a s se rte d re lia nc e whe n he
wa s first a

rre ste d. Also, de fe nse c ounse l m ay have de c l ine d to a dva nc e an e ntra pm e nt de fe nse in orde r to a void ha ving Astorga c ross-e xam ine d on the spe c ific s of the de fe nse . Astorga ha s not shown tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to a s ua sponte instruc tion or tha

t de fe nse c ounse l wa s ine ffe c t ive for fa iling to re que st suc h an instruc tion. 2. Whe n Age nt Soria

in re sponse to a

que s tion sta

te d tha t Astorga did not have a le ga l right to be

in the Unite d State s, de fe nse c ounse l obje c te d, a n d the
a ge nt c la rifie d his a

n swe r to e xpla in tha

t his re vie w of the gove rnm e nt’ s doc um e nts did not disc lose any pa pe r a uthoriz ing Astorga ’ s re e ntry . This re sponse

2 W ith his rep ly

brie f, Astorga

subm itte d a

pre ss re le a se . The gove rnm e nt file d a

m otion to strike

the pre ss re le a se and Astorga re sponde d with a re que s t for judic ia l notic e . The re que st for judic ia l notic e is gra nte d a nd the m otion to strike is de n i e d. 3did not dire c tly a ddre ss a n e le m e nt of thec h arge d c rim e and de fe nse c ounse l did not obje c t. Astorga

ha s not shown tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in fa iling to e xc lude this e vide nc e . Se eUnite d State s v . Edw ards , 235 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C ir. 2000). Furthe rm ore , in c onte xt, the a g e nt’ s c om m e nt wa s not like ly to ha ve ha d a ny e ffe c t on thejury ’ s ve rdic t. Se eUnite d State s v . Pang , 362 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th C ir. 2004). 3. Astorga

c la im s tha

t the prose c utor m issta

t e d the me ns re a sta

nda rd in he r c losing a rgum e nt. B e c a

use the re wa s no c onte m

p orane ous c ha l le nge to the sta te m e nt, we re v ie w only

for pla in e rror. Astorga ’ s c onte ntion is not pe rsua sive be c a use : (a ) in c onte xt it is doubtful tha t the prose c utor’ s sta

te m e nt wa s im

p rope r; (b) the jury

wa s prope rly

instruc te d a

nd we have he ld tha

t instruc tions c arry

m ore we ight tha

n a rgum e nt, se eUnite d State s v . Be gay , 673 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba

nc ); a nd (c ) it is unlike ly

tha t the sta t e m e nt ha d

any e ffe c t on thejury ’ s ve rdic t. 4. Astorga

a sse rts tha

t his 78-month se nte nc e , whic h wa s at the low e nd of the G uide line s, is unre a sona ble be c a use his prior c rim e s oc c urre d m ore tha n e ight y e ars a go whe n he wa s 21 or y ounge r. W e re vie wc rim ina l se nte nc e s for
re a s ona ble ne s s a nd in doing so c onside r whe the r the distric t c o urt’ s se nte nc ing de c ision wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Ame zc ua-Vasque

z , 567 F.3d 41050, 1053 (9th C ir. 2009). He re , the distric t c ourt a ddre sse d the m itiga ting fa c t ors offe re d by

Astorga and de te rm ine d

tha t the y only

supporte d re d

uc ing his
se nte nc e to the low e n d

of the Guide l ine range . Astorga ha s not c arrie d his burde n of showing tha

t this wa s unre a sona

ble
. Astorga ’ s c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e are a ffir m e d
.

5