T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J O SE FERN A N D O V I LLEG A SGU TI ER RE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50523 D . C . N o. 3: 11 -c r- 00 51 7-JL S -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a ni s L . S a m m a r t i no, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r3, 2012

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B E R Z O N , C L IF T O N , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jose F ernand o V i l l egas -G ut i erre z app ea l s hi s j ury c on vi ct i on for i l l egal r e e ntry a f

t e rde por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. W e a f f i rm the j udgm e nt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. 

# FI LED DE C 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

1. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n ref usi ng t o p rovi de V i l l egas ’ s r equest ed j ury i nstruct i on on offi ci al re stra i nt . T here w as no evi dence i n the re cord that V i l l egas w as un der c on t i nu ou s s urvei l l ance atany t i m e bef ore or a ft erhe cr osse d th e b o r d e rin to th e U n ite d S ta te s . Se e U ni te d State s v . B e l lo–B ahe na , 411 F . 3d 1083, 1089 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( s t a t i ng tha ta de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o a j ury i ns truc t i on w he n the i ns truc t i on i s “ s uppor t e d by l a w ” a nd ha s “ s om e f ounda t i on i n the e vi de nc e ” ( quot i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. Fej es , 232 F . 3d 696, 702 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ) ) . T he onl y e vi de nc e of

a c tua l s urve i l l a nc e w a s the tr i gge r i ng of a s e i s m i c s e ns ora tthe b o r d e rw h ic h , u n d e ro u rc a s e la w , d o e s n o t c o n s titu te o f f ic ia l r e s tr a in t. See U

ni ted Stat es v. V

ela-R ob l es , 3 9 7 F .3 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he pres ence of re m ot e- control l ed, 24 -hou r c am er as i n the ar eaw here V i l l egas w as apprehended d oes notconst i tut e s uffi ci entevi dence thatV i l l egas e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s unde rc ont i nuous obs e rva t i on t o m e r i ta n of f i c i a l r e s tr a i nt i ns truc t i on. I n U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a s te lla n o s - G a r c ia , w e r ej ec t ed as “ m er e s pe c ul a t i on” the de f

e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nttha the c oul d ha ve be e n obs e rve d by one of the f i f t e e n orm or e B or de rP a tr ol a ge nt s i n the a r e a w he r e he w a s a rr e s t e d. 270 F . 3d 77 3, 77 6 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). V i l l egas ’ s a rgum entthathe m ayhave been un der c a m e r a s urve i l l a nc e i s e qua l l y s pe c ul a t i ve , pa r t i c ul a r l y be c a us e the a rr e s t i ng B o rd erP atro l ag en t t es ti fied th at h e r ec eiv ed n o n o ti fica ti o n re g ar d in g V il leg as ’s- 3-

l ocat i on af

t erthe se nsor w as tri gg er ed, and b ec ause i ti s unl i kel y thatsuch in f o rm a tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n w ith h e ld if V ille g a s h a d b e e n s p o tte d b y a g e n ts m on i t ori ng B order P atrol ca m er as . A cc ordi ng l y, w hi l e V i l l egas ’ s propo se d j ury in s tru c tio n o n o f

f ic ia l r e s tr a in t w a s s u p p o r te d b y la w , it la c k e d a n y f o u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e c lin in g to is s u e it. 2. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng the chal l enged t est i m o n y o f th e A -fi l e cu st o d i an . T h e co u rt ’ s i n l i m i ne rul i ng r e s e rve d the pos s i bi l i ty of

de f e ns e obj e c t i ons t o the c us t odi a n’ s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l f orl a c k of fo u n d atio n . N o su ch o b

jectio n w as m ad e. N o r w as ad m issio n o f th e c u sto d ian ’s s t a t e m e nt s pl a i n e rr or , a s the s t a t e m e nt s di d notobvi ous l y r e qui r e tha tthe c u s to d ia n b e q u a lif

ie d a s a n e x p e r t. 3 . F i n al l y, ev en assu m i n g th atth e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s l i m i t at i o n s o n cro sse xa m i na t i on of

the A - f i l e c us t odi a n vi ol a t e d the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e , a ny e rr or w a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. See U n i ted S ta tes v. Sch o n eb erg , 396 F .3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). V il leg as w as n o t p re ju d iced b y th e d istrict co u rt’s re stri ct i on . T he exi st ence of al t ernat i ve w ay s t o app l y f or re adm i ss i on other than F orm I - 212 w a s notpe r t i ne ntt o the e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e unde r§ 1326. T he re l evantqu es t i on w as no tw hether there w as any e vi dence thatV i l l egas had appl i e d for perm i ss i on t o ree nt erbu tw hether there w as any e vi dence thathe had- 4-

re ce i ve d such perm i ss i on . T he A -f i l e c ust od i an’ s t es t i m on y c on ce rni ng hi s s ea rc h of V i l l egas ’ s r ec ords w as suff i ci entt o i nd i ca t e thatno such perm i ss i on had b ee n gi ve n. T he c our t ’ s l i m i t a t i on on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on r e ga r di ng the pos s i bl e m e thods of appl y i ng f

orpe rm i s s i on c oul d notha ve a f f e c t e d the j ury ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the e vi de nc e c onc e rni ng w he the ra ny pe rm i s s i on w a s a c tua l l y gi ve n. T h e j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.