F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v.

J O R G E H U M B E R

T O T H U M , Defendant-Appellant

. No. 13-50176

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00840-DMS-2

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District J udg e , Presiding

Arg ued and Submitted April 7, 2014—Pasadena, California

F iled April 25, 2014

B e fore: Sidney

R. Thomas, Milan D. Smith, J r., and Morg an Christen, Circuit J udg es.

O pinion by

J udg e Milan D. Smith, J r.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 2

SUMMARY *

Crim inal Law

Vacating the d i strict court’s judg ment revoking supervised release, the p a n e l h eld that the defendant did not encourag e or induce an illeg al alien to reside in t h e U n ited States in v iolation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) ( A ) ( i v ), nor aid and abet the commission of that crime in v iolation of 8 U .S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A ) ( v ) ( I I ), merely b y escorting an a lien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle.

The panel remand e d with instructions to dismiss the petition.

COUNSEL

Devin B urstein ( a r gu ed), W arren & B urstein, San Dieg o, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ry an A. Sausedo ( arg ued) and B ruce R. Castetter, Assistant United States Attorney s, San Dieg o, California, for PlaintiffAppellee.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 3

OP INION

M. SMI TH, Circuit J udg e :

I n this appeal, we consider whether J org e Humberto Thum encourag ed or induced an illeg al alien to reside in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), o r aided and abetted the commission of this crime, in violation of 8 U .S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I I ), m e r e ly by escorting that

a l i en from a f

ast food restaurant near the border to a n e a r b y

ve h i c l e

. W e conclude that he d id not. According ly

, we vacate the district court’s judg ment r evoking Thum’s
super v i s e d release, and we remand with instructions to dismiss the petition.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK G ROUND

Thum is a United States citiz e n with a history o f convictions for smug g ling illeg al aliens. I n 2008, the district
court sentenced T hum to 33 months of incarceration and two
y ears o f supervised release after h e pleaded g uilty to tr a n s p o r ting an illeg al alien, in violation of 8 U .S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), a

nd a i d i n g and abetting

, in violation o f § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I

I )

. On September 3 0, 2011, the district
court imposed a

n a d ditional two-y ear term of supervised release after Thum admitted to f ai ling to maintain contact with his probation officer.

On November 19, 2012, federal ag ents arrested Thum

near the San Ysidro Port of Entry in Southern California. On November 30, 2 012, a probation o fficer in the Southern District of California fil e d a petition alleg ing that Thum violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and therefore v iolated the terms of his supervised release by committing anotherU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 4

federal crime. T h u m denied the alleg ation, and the district court held an evidentiary

hearing on April 10, 2013.

At the evidentiary hearing

, Special Ag ent Prescilla Gonz a lez of the Departme n t o f H omeland Security testified that, on November 19, 201 2, federal ag ents followed a man named Aldo Varg

uez -Rodrig uez from the San Ysidro Port o f Entry t o a J a ck in the B ox fast food restaurant near the border. The ag ents decided to follow Varguez -R o d r i g uez because they sus p e c t e d that he had presented a false identification card to the primary inspection officer a t the border, and that he lacked p erm i s s i o n to enter the United States.

Ag ent Gonz alez testified th a t , upon entering the J ack in the B ox restaurant, V arg uez -Rodrig uez sat alone at a table for

a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, Thum joined him, and the
two men conversed briefly

. 1 Nex t, Thu m a n d V a rg u ez

Rodrig uez left the restaurant tog ether and crossed the s t r eet to a “transportation van area” where vans w a ited to take
passeng ers to L os Ang eles. Thum then sp o k e with a ticket

sa l e s person. I mmediately thereafter, Thum and V a rg u ez

Rodrig uez were a

rrested when they attempted to enter one o f the vans.

After arresting Thum, the ag ents broug ht h im to the Port of Entry and questioned him. T h u m t old the ag ents that an acquaintance of his named Chapalin w as an alien s m u ggler.

1 A t th e h earin g , A g en t Go n zalez t estif ied ab o u t th e co n ten ts of Varg u ez- Ro d rig u ez a n d T h u m ’ s co n v ersatio n b ased o n V arg u ezRo d rig u ez’ s p o st- arrest statem en ts. T h e district co u rt su stain ed T h u m ’ s

o b j ectio n to th is testim o n y on h earsay g ro u n d s , an d n eith er p arty relies on it.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 5

Chapali n h a d s poken with T hum earlier that day and told Thum that he planned to transport two illeg al aliens from the border to Northern California. Chapalin offered to transport Thum to Carlsbad, California if Thum ag reed to escort an illeg al alien—Varg

uez -Rodrig uez —from the J ack in the B ox restaurant to a nearby vehicle. A g ent Gonz alez f urther testified that ag ents later confirmed that Varguez -Rodrig uez was an illeg a l alien.

The g overnment also called Probation Officer Edward Nover I I
, who testified that, in h is o pinion, Thum h ad violated the condition s o f his supervised release. No other

e v idence was taken. B ased on the testimony at t h e evidentia ry hearing

, the district court sustained the
g overnment’s a lleg ation, revoked T hum’s supervised rel e ase, sentenced him to time served, and imposed an additional twoy ear term of supervised release. I n so doing

, the district court concluded that Ag ent Gonz alez ’s testimony showed that Thum h ad committed the crime of “encourag ing or inducing [ an illeg a l a l ien] to reside in the United States,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), becaus e “[ o] ne can more readily reside in the United Stat e s if he is

. . . taken away from the Port of Entry and a way f rom I CE ag ents and others.” Thum timely appealed.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e hav e j u r i s diction u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Rojas-Pedroza

, 716 F

. 3d 1253, 1 260 (9th Cir. 2013). W e review a d istrict court’s revocation of a term o f supervised r elease for an abuse o f discretion. United States

v. Verduzco

, 330 F

. 3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). I n

ev a luating the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a supervised release revocation, “we ask whether, ‘viewing theU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 6

evidence in the lig ht most favorable t o t h e g overnment, any rational trier o f fact c ould have f ound the essential elements of a violation’ by ‘a preponderance of the evidence.’” United States v

. King
, 608 F

. 3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2 010) (quoting U nited States v. Jeremiah

, 4 93 F .3d 1042, 1 045 (9th C i r. 2007)).

D ISCUSSION

Thum arg ues that the evidence before the district co u r t

was insufficient to establish that he encourag ed or induced an illeg al alien (i.e., Varg

uez -Rodrig u ez ) to reside in the United States. Thum further contends that the evidence w a s insufficient to prove that he aided or a bett ed Chapalin in
encourag ing or inducing an illeg al alien to r e s ide in this country . W e address these arg uments in turn.

I. Encourages or Induces

Thum first arg ues that the evidence was insuffi c i e n t to prove that he encourag ed or induced Varguez -R o d r i g uez to reside in the United States, in violation 8 U .S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). His arg ument focuses c hiefly on the statutory tex t. Under § 1 324(a)(1)(A)(iv), it is a federal crime
to “encourag e[ ] or induce[ ] an al i e n to come to, e nter, o r reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disreg ard of the f act that such coming to, e n try , or reside n c e i s or will be in violation of law.” As w e h a v e previously ex plained, 8 U.S.C. § 1 3 2 4 codifies “several discrete immig r ation offenses, including : (1) bring ing an alien to the United States; (2) transporting

or moving an illeg al alien within the United States; (3) harboring or concealing an illeg al alien within the U n ited States; and (4) encourag ing or inducing an il l e ga l alien to enter [ or reside in] the United States.” United StatesU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 7

v. Lopez
, 484 F .3d 1186, 1190–91 (9th Cir. 2007) ( en banc). Thum arg ues that the evidence here—i.e., that he escorted an illeg al alien from a restaurant to a van, knowing that the alien would be transported to Nort h e r n C a l ifornia—shows, at most, that h e a ided in the atte mpted transportation of the a lien, which w ould be covered u nder 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). 2 Thum asserts, however, that there is no evidence sug g esting that he did any

thing to e ncourag e or induce the alien to reside in this country

. A nd he mainta i n s that encourag ing o r inducing an illeg al alien to r eside in the United States must

mean something other than aiding in the transportation of an illeg al alien within this country

.

Even v iewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the g overnment, see King
, 6 0 8 F

. 3d at 1129, Thum’s
arg ument is persuasive. I n Lopez , we ex plained that each of the immig ration offenses codifie d i n 8 U.S.C. § 1 324 is “discrete,” and that Cong ress intended each t o “cover different g roups of wrong doers.” Lopez
, 484 F

. 3 d at 1190, 1197. As such, we rejected an interpretat i o n o f the statute that would elide the d istinction betw e en bring ing an illeg al alien into the U n i t ed States, in violation of 8 U .S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B )(ii), a

nd t r a n sporting an illeg al a lien within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Lopez
, 484 F .3d at 1197. Similarly here, under the
g overnment’s and the district c ourt’s interpretation of the statute, a defendant who transported an illeg al alien within the

2 8 U .S.C. § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1 )(A )( i i ) crim in alizes “ k n o w in g o r in reck less d isreg ard o f

th e f act th at an alien h as co m e to , en tered , o r rem ain s in th e Un i ted States in v io l a t i o n o f law

, tran sp o rt[in g ], o r m o v [in g ] or attem p t[in g ] to tran sp ort o r m o v e s u ch alien w i t h i n th e Un ited States b y

m e an s o f tran s p o rtatio n or oth erw ise, in f u rth eran ce o f su ch v i olatio n of law .” T h u m d o es n o t c o n c e d e th at t h e ev id en ce w as su f

f icien t to sh o w th at h e co m

m itted an y

crim e.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 8

United States would a lso have encourag ed that alien to reside in the United States. This r eading of the statute is foreclosed by Lopez
, a s it would render the statutory ban on transporting il leg al aliens within the United States a mere subset of the prohibition on encourag ing such aliens to reside in t his country

.

The g overnmen t counters that its broad reading o f “encourag es or induces” to “reside” is c o mpelled b y the plain lang uag e of the statute, and that Thum encourag ed V a rg u ez

Rodrig uez to remain in this country by assisting in his attempt to travel nort h

. This arg ument is unpersuasive. At the o utset, we ag ree with the g o v e r n m e nt, and the Seventh Circuit, that “to e ncourag e” means “to inspire with courag e , spirit, or hope

. . . to spur on

. . . to g ive help or patronag e to.” United States v. H

e , 245 F. 3 d 9 5 4
, 960 (7th Cir. 2 001) (quoting Merriam W ebster’s Colleg iate Dictionary 381 (10th ed. 1996)). I ndeed, we h a v e previously equated “encourag ed” with “ helped.” United States v. Y o s h ida

, 303 F .3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002).

B u t the g overnment’s arg ument th at Thum encourag ed Varguez -Rodrig uez to reside in the U nited States merely b y escorting him to a van that Thum knew was t r a v e l i n g north clashes with the statutory tex t. I t is ax iomatic that “ a statute should be construed so that effect is g ive n t o a ll its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative o r superfluous, void or insig nificant.” Corley v. United S tates , 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009) (internal quotation mark s a n d a l t erations omitted);

see a lso United States v. Lin
, 738 F .3d 1082, 1 084 ( 9 th Cir. 2013) (rejecting an interpretat i o n o f one statutory provision
t h a t “ would leave no work to b e done by ” another). A n d he re , reading “encourag es” u nder § 1 324(a)(1)(A)(iv) a s broadly as the g overnment seeks “would leave no w ork to beU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 9

d o ne by ” the separate ban on transporting an illeg al a lie n within the United Sta t e s under § 1 324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Lin
, 738 F .3d a t 1084. W e therefore reject the g overnment’s reading of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). 3

Our decision in Y

oshida

, on which the g overnment relies, does not compel a contrary c o n c lusion. I n that c ase, the defendant escorted three a liens onto an airpla n e a nd accompanied them from J apan to the United States. Y oshida

, 303 F

. 3d at 1148. W e affirmed the defendant’s conviction for both en c o urag ing or inducing the aliens to enter the United States, under§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and b ring ing those aliens to the United States, under § 1324(a)(2)(B )(ii). Id. a t 1149. The
g overnment correctly observes that, under Y oshida

, the same criminal conduct may violate more than one provision o f § 1324 at the same time. A cc o r d i n gl y , if Thum had both assiste d in the transportation of an illeg al a lien within the United States and taken steps to encourag e that alien to reside here, Y oshida w ould permit the revocation of h is supervised release under both the “encourag es or induces” and the

3 T h e g o v ern m en t arg u es th at Lo p ez s h o u ld n o t ap p ly h ere becau se “ an

en co u rag i n g of

f en se an d a tran sp o rtatio n o f f en se b o th carry th e sam e

m ax im u m p en alties an d n o m an dato ry m in i m u m p e n alty ,” an d th eref

ore

“ [n ]o th in g w o u ld b e g a i n e d ” by in terp retin g § 1 3 2 4 “ to elim in ate an y p o ten tial o v erlap b etw een th e tw o o f f en ses.” B u t, reg ard l e s s o f su ch
p r a c t i c a l co n cern s, w e m u st co n stru e § 1 3 24 in a m an n er th at g i v e s in d ep en den t ef

f ect to each o f its pro v isio n s

. Co rley

, 5 5 6 U

. S

. a t 3 1 4

. Fu rt her, bef o re a d i strict co u rt m ay rev ok e a p ro b atio n er’ s su p erv i s ed release, d u e p ro cess req u ires t h at th e p ro b atio n er “ recei v e n o tice of th e sp ecif ic statu te h e is ch arg ed w ith v io latin g .” U n ited S ta tes v. Ha vier
, 1 5 5 F.3 d 1 0 9 0, 1 0 93 (9 th Cir. 1 99 8 ). Here, th e g ov ern m en t p ro ceed ed ag ain st T h u m u n d er 8 U.S.C. § 13 2 4(a)(1 )(A )(iv ), an d n o t u n der § 13 2 4 (a)(1 )(A )(ii). T h e m ere f act th at th e tw o d istin ct crim es m ay carry th e sam e m ax im

u m p u n ish m en t d o es n o t ex cu se th e g ov ern m en t’ s f ailu re to ch arg e T h u m

u n d er th e p ro per statu to ry p ro v isio n

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 10

“transports within” provisions of § 1 324. B ut, a s d iscussed

a b o v e , Thum took no steps to encourag e an illeg al alien t o reside in this country , and not h i ng in Y oshida supports the proposition that the “e n c ourag es or induces” provision is violated whenever a defe n d a n t eng ag e s in conduct that may

v i o l ate the “ transports within” provision. Y oshida is therefore inapposite.

Rather, a s Thum arg ues, the o ut-of-circuit deci s i o ns in U n i ted States v. Ndiaye

, 434 F .3d 1270, 1298 (11th C i r. 2006), and United S

tates v. Ol o

y e de

, 982 F .2d 133, 135–37 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), provide more use f u l g uidance here. I n Nd i a

y e , the Eleventh Circuit concluded that a defendant who enabled an illeg al a lien to work in the United States without fear of detection by supply ing the alien with a Social Security number to w h ich he was not entitled was properly convicted of e n courag ing the alien to r e s ide h ere. Ndiaye , 434 F .3d at 1 298. Similarly , in Oloyede , the F ourth Circuit concluded that the defendant encourag ed illeg al a liens
to reside in the United States by provi d ing them with false documents for citiz enship applications. Oloyede

, 982 F .2d at 137. As these cases demonstrate, a d e f en dant “encourag es”

an illeg al alien to “reside” in the U nited States when the defendant takes some action “to convince the illeg al alien to

. . . stay in this country ,” id.

, or to facilitate the alien’s ability
to li v e i n this country indefinitely

, see Ndiaye

, 434 F .3d at 1298.

I n this c a se, by contrast, the g overnment proffered no evidence showing that Thum did any thing to persuade, o r

even assist, an illeg al ali e n to reside here. Rather, the evidence viewed in the lig ht mos t f avorable to the
g overnment merely shows that Thum a tt empted to help an illeg al alien travel within the United States. As d iscussedU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 11

above, if merely facilitating the trans p o rtation of an illeg al alien within this country sufficed to show “encourag ement,” then the separate statutory pro h i b i tion on “transportation” would be superfluous. As such, the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that Thum violated his supervised release by encourag ing an illeg al alien to reside in the Untied States.

II. Aiding and Abetting

J u s t a s t he evidence was insufficient to find that Thum

enco u rag e d an illeg a l alien to reside in the United States, there was insufficient evidence to show that Thum aided a nd abetted the commission of this cr ime. I n revoking Thum’s supervised release, the d istrict court conc l uded that Thum “was aiding and abetting Chapa l in in [ Varguez -Rodrig uez ] residing in the United States.” The g o vernment a t t e m p t s to support this decision by observing that Thum knew that Varguez -Rodrig uez was an illeg al alien, that Chapalin was an alien smug g ler, and that Chapalin intended to t ransport Varguez -Rodrig uez f

rom the border to Nor t hern California. B ut while this e vidence may have been sufficient to show that Thum a ided and a

betted Chapalin’s a ttempted transportation of an illeg al a lien, there i s n o e vidence to show that Thum aided and abetted Chapalin in encourag ing an illeg al a lien to reside in the United States. 4

4 T h e g o v ern m en t also arg u es th at a ratio n al trier o f f act co u ld h a v e

co n clu d ed t h at T h u m aid ed Ch ap alin in en co u rag in g an illeg al alien to

e n t e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , wh i c h i s a l s o p r o h i b i t e d u n d e r § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1 )(A )(iv ). B u t w e d iscern n o ev id en ce in th e reco rd sh o w in g th at T h u m h ad an

y th in g to d o w ith V arg u ez- Ro d rig u ez’ s d ecisio n t o en ter th is co u n try

illeg ally

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 12

“ I n this circuit, the elements necessary f or an a iding a

n d abetting conviction are: (1) that the accused had the specific i ntent to facilitate the commission of a crime by anoth e r, (2) that the accused had the r equisite intent of the underly ing substantive offense, (3) that the a c cused assisted o r participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense, a

nd (4) t hat someone committed the underly ing substantive offense.” U

nited States v. Shorty

, 741 F .3d 961, 969–70 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v

. S i n gh

, 532 F .3d 1 053, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2008)). Even viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the g overnment, there is no evidence that Chapalin “committed the underly i n g substantive offense” by encourag ing an illeg al alien to reside in the United States. Shorty , 741 F

. 3d at 970.

Encourag ing an illeg a l alien to reside in the United States
must mean something more than merely transporting such an alien within this c ountry

. See Unite d S tates v. SanchezVargas
, 878 F .2d 1163, 1 1 6 9 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[ T] he transport offense was directed, in larg e part, at curbing the widespread practice o f transporting illeg al immig ran t s, already in the U nited States, to jobs a nd locations away from the border where immi gr ation enforcement resources may h a v e been more scarce.”). A nd here, the evidence show e d

o n l y t h at Chapalin soug ht to transport illeg al aliens to Northern California. On this scant record, no rational trier o f fact could conclude that Chapalin e ncourag ed an illeg al alien
to reside in the United States. A c c o rding ly

, there was insufficient evidence to prov e that Thum aided and abetted Chapalin in so doing

. See Shorty , 741 F .3d at 970.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. T H U M 13

CONCLUSION

F or the foreg oing reas o ns, we vacate the district court’s judg ment revoking Thum’s supervi s e d release, and we remand with instructions to dismiss the petition.

VACATED AND REMANDED, w ith instructions.