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 

### Ju n e20,2007 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 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. O D IL O N M E N D O Z A -V E L A S C O ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4096 ( D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 - C R - 2 9 6 - D K W)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. D e fe n d a n tO d i l o n M e n d o z a - V e l a s c o w a s c h a r g e d w i th i l l e g a l r e e n try b y a dep ort ed ali en in vi olat i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . D efen dan tm ov ed to di sm i ss th e in d ictm e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t h is p rio r d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g v io late d h is Fi fth A m endmentdue pr oces s r i ght s . W hen thatm ot i on w as deni ed, D efe ndant condi t i onal l ypl eade d gui l t yand w as s ent ence d t o for ty - s i x m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent w ith a tw e n ty -fo u r m o n th p e rio d o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . D e fe n d a n t n o w a p p e a ls t he deni al of hi s m ot i on and the r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence .A ccor di ng t o 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , i ti s a cr i m e foranyper s on 1 w ho, “know i ng ori n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa ctt hatan al i en has come t o, ent er ed, orr emai ns i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of l aw , t r ans por t s , orm oves orat t empt s t o t r ans por torm ove s uch al i en w i thi n the U ni t ed St at es bym eans of tr a n s p o rt a tio n o r o th e rw is e , in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

s u c h v io la tio n o f

la w .”

- 2- B AC KGROU ND I n M ay2000, D efe ndantw as arr es t ed i n Sout hern A r i zona fort r ans por t i ng ei ghti l l egal al i ens . A ccor di ng t o D efe ndant , he i nt ended onl yt o pr ovi de 1 tra n sp o rta tio n to tw o fe m a le a lien s w h o h a d su sta in e d m in o r inju rie s d u rin g th e ir b o r d e rc r o s s i n g , b u tt h e o t h e rs i x a l i e n s p i l e d i n t o h i s c a ra n d r e f u s e d t o e x i t . He w as defe nded bycouns el w ho, al though not i ng D efe ndant ’ s cas e w as a “c l os e” o n e , a d v is e d D e fe n d a n t to p le a d g u ilty in e x c h a n g e fo r a s e n te n c e o f tim e s e rv e d . D efe ndant , t hen a l egal perm anentr es i denti nt enton r emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , as s ert s t hathe onl ypl eade d gui l tybeca us e hi s att or neyadvi s ed hi m t hat S e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t w o u ld lik e lyp re v e n t h is depor t at i on. T hatpr ovi s i on, how ever , had bee n r epea l ed i n 1996. A tt he s ubs equentdepor t at i on hear i ng, D efe ndantel ect ed t o pr ocee d w ith o u t co u n se l d e sp ite th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s o ffe rs to d e lay th e p ro c e e d in g s in or derforD efe ndantt o obt ai n r et ai ned orpr o bono couns el . T he I J t hen ques t i oned D efe ndantabouthi s § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) convi ct i on. D efe ndant a c k n o w led g e d th e c o n v ictio n b u t d isa g re e d th a t h is c irc u m sta n c e s m a d e it a depor t abl e offens e. A ccor di ng t o D efe ndant , beca us e he onl yt r ans por t ed the- 3-

al i ens for“humani t ar i an r eas ons ” r atherthan form oney , he s houl d nothave face d t he pos s i bi l i t yof deport at i on. ( D oc. 10 at9. ) T he I J i nform ed D efe ndant : “The la w c h a n g e d m a n yy e a rs a g o ” a n d “ n o lo n g e r r e q u ir e s th e fe d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t . . . t o pr ove thaty ou t r ans por t ed anybodyform onet aryr eas ons . . . . E ven i f y ou t r ans por t ed them for humani t ar i an r eas ons , i ti s s t i l l a vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw . ” (Id. ) N evert hel es s , beca us e of D efe ndant ’ s pr ot es t at i on, the I J r eques t ed, and the governm entpr oduced, D efe ndant ’ s convi ct i on r ecor d. T he I J then expl ai ned the natur e of D efe ndant ’ s convi ct i on as w el l as the i m pl i cat i ons of convi ct i on on D e fe n d a n t’s d e p o rta b ili ty . D e fe n d a n t sta ted th a t h e u n d e rsto o d a n d c o n c e d e d h is convi ct i on. A ft erdet erm i ni ng t hatno otherexce pt i ons appl i ed, the I J offe r ed D e fe n d a n t th e c h a n c e to a d d re s s th e c o u rt b e fo re it h a n d e d d o w n a fin a l d e c is io n . D efe ndantw as cutoff, how ever , w hen he be gan t o s peak on hi s l i fe i n the U ni t ed St at es . W hen the I J i nform ed D efe ndantthatthe courtw as r es tr i ct ed byl aw fr om cons i der i ng t he effec t s of deport at i on on hi s fami l yand thatno otherexce pt i ons a p p lied to D e fe n d a n t, th e fo llo w in g c o llo q u yo c c u rre d : A . So, t her e i s no l aw orcode thatw oul d al l ow m e ca ncel l at i on o f d e p o r t a t i o n ? Q . Y ou ar e notel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval beca us e of y o u r co n v ict ion . B ec au se itis an ag g rav ated fe lon y , y o u d o n ’t qual i fyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval as a s t atut orybaror[pr obat i on] fo r c a n c e lla tio n .- 4-

A . So t her e’ s not hi ng I can do? Q . U nl es s y ou can ge ta par don fr om the Pr es i dentof the U ni t ed S tate s, th e re is n o th in g y o u c a n d o . A t lea st n o t w ith in m yp o w e r to gr anty ou. (Id. a t 1 4 -1 5 .) D efen d an t w as d ep o rt ed , b u t l ater il lega ll yree n tered the U . S . T h ere af ter, h e w as a rrested an d ch arg ed w ith il lega l r ee n try . A fter d en y ing D efen d an t’ s m o ti o n to d ism iss th e ind ictm en t, the d istri ct co u rtac ce p ted D efen d an t’ s condi t i onal pl ea a nd s ent ence d hi m . A ts ent enci ng, D efe ndantobj ect ed t o the p re-sen tenc e re p o rt ’s reco m m en d ati o n o f a 1 6 -po int en h an ce m en t fo r D efen d an t’ s ill e g a l tran sp o rta tio n c o n v ictio n . D e fe n d a n t ar g u e d th a t th e fa c ts u n d e rly in g h is convi ct i on di d notw arr ants uch har s h tr eatm ent . T hatobj ect i on w as overrul ed, and D efe ndantw as s ent ence d t o for ty - s i x m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow end of t he r ecomm ended Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ r ange. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. A N A LY S IS A . D u e P rocess D e fe n d a n t ar g u e s th a t h is F if th A m e n d m e n t p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e the I J ’ s “pr es i dent i al par don” comm entamount ed t o an “affi r m at i vel ym i s l eadi ng s t at ementaboutt he r el i ef a vai l abl e, ” ther ebyr ender i ng h is d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g f u n d a m e n ta lly u n fa ir . (D e f.’s O p e n in g B r. a t 1 4 .) Speci fi cal l y , D efe ndantas s ert s t hatt he I J ’ s “i ncorr ectl egal advi ce” pr ecl udedD efe ndanti ni t i al l yar gues t hatt he us e of a n i nt erpr et eratt he deport at i on 2 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- h im f ro m c h a lle n g in g h is § 1 3 2 4 c o n v ic tio n v ia a § 2 2 5 5 h a b e a s p e titio n . (Id. at 1 2 .) “W hen a pr evi ous deport at i on pr ocee di ng i s att acke d on cons t i tut i onal g r o u n d s , we a r e p r e s e n t e d wi t h a mi x e d q u e s t i o n o f l a w a n d fa c t , wh i c h we r evi ew de novo. ” Un itedS ta tes v . A g u irr e -Te llo , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( en banc ) . D efe ndantbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng thatthe under l y i ng depor t at i on hear i ng w as fundament al l yunfai r , w hi ch r equi r es s how i ng thathe w a s p reju d ic e d . Id. D eport at i on pr ocee di ngs ar e affor ded a “ pr es um pt i on of r egul ar i t y . ” Id. A s w e h a v e p re v io u slyn o ted , itis a n “ u n d isp u ted p ro p o sitio n th a t a pot ent i al depor t ee i s ent i t l ed i n hi s deport at i on pr ocee di ng t o pr ocedur al due p ro c e ss u n d e r th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t, de sig n e d to e n su re th a t th e p ro c e e d in g is fundament al l yfai r . ” Id . W e do notbel i eve, how ever , thatthe I J ’ s comm ent v io la te d D e fe n d a n t’ s p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . T he comm entw as m ade af t eran ex tens ive d iscu ssion reg ard ing the n ature o f D e fe n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n , w h ic h e n d e d w h e n D e fe n d a n t c o n c e d e d th e c o n v ic tio n . A tt hatpoi nt , t he di s cus s i on tur ned t o D efe ndant ’ s deport at i on. T he comm ent w a s m a d e in th e c o n tex t o f e x c e p tio n s to d e p o rta tio n , an d p e rta in e d sp e c ifica llyto t he “pos s i bi l i t y of canc el l at i on. ” T he pot ent i al avai l abi l i tyof habe as r el i ef f r om 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 hear i ng pr ej udi ced hi s abi l i t yt o ful l ycompre hend the col l oquy , an ar gum entthat D e fe n d a n t fa ile d to ra is e in h is m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. See Walkerv. Mather (

In re Walker

) , 959 F. 2d 894, 896 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( r efus i ng t o t ake up i s s ue r ai s ed forfi r s tt i m e on appe al ) . R ecogni zi ng thi s pr obl em, D efe ndant s w i t ches t ack a nd ar gues nott hatD efe ndant“di d notunder s t and w hatw as goi ng o n b u t th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld n o t ex p e c t a p ro se im m ig ra n t to lit ig a te h is c a se w ith th e sa m e v ig o r a s a law -tra in e d a tto rn e y .” (D e f.’s R e p lyB r. at 5 .) A s a re su lt, “[a ] nycont extual ambi gui t ys houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof thi s uncouns el ed al i en. ” (Id. ) T h e re c o rd c o n ta in s n o e v id e n c e re fle c tin g D e fe n d a n t’ s c o n f u s io n . T o t he contr ary , D efe ndantm or e than ade quat el yr epr es ent ed hi s pos i t i on t o the IJ . M o re o v e r, a s e x p la in e d h e re in , w e fin d n o “ c o n te x tu a l a m b ig u ity.”

- 6- t he under l y i ng convi ct i on w as notappl i cabl e i n thi s cont ext , and w e s ee no r eas on w hyt he I J s houl d have i nt erpr et ed the ques t i on i n thatm anner . A s the di s tr i ct cour tr ecogni zed, w her e the I J had bee n gi ven no “s ugges t i on, i ndi cat i on, or s l i ght es thi ntt hatt her e mi ghtbe s om e l egi t i m at e bas i s forchal l engi ng the u n d e rly in g c o n v ictio n ,” th e IJ c o u ld n o t re a so n a b lyb e e x p e c ted to in tu it a rig h t to habea s r el i ef, par t i cul ar l yaft ert he conve r s at i on had “s hi ft ed fr om the ci rcum st ances s ur r oundi ng[the] under l y i ng convi ct i on t o the cons equenc es of the crim inal co n v ict ion . ” (D o c. 14 at 10 -11 (M em . D ec isi o n & O rde r D en . D ef. ’s M o t. to D ism iss at 10 -11 ). ) N o r do es D efen d an t’ s fo ll o w -up q u esti o n , “S o there ’s n o th in g I c a n d o ,” a lter th e c o n tex t. T h a t q u e stio n re late s d ire c tlyto h is c a n c e llatio n -sp e c ific q u e stio n , n o t to a b ro a d e r c o n tex t. B. Se nt e nc i ng D efe ndantcont ends t hathi s for ty - s i x m onth s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e gi ven hi s l ack- of- pr ofi tm ot i ve i n t he under l y i ng al i en tr ans por t at i on offe ns e. H e ar gues- 7-

t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed bynotvary i ng dow nw ar d beca us e i tfai l ed t o exami ne t he § 35 53 (a) fact ors. S entenci ng decis i on s ar e revi ew ed d e no vo , and sent ences w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ’ r a n g e a re e n title d to a p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g to D e fe n d a n t, th e d istric t co u rt’s e rro r is e v id e n t f ro m its s t at ementt hat , des pi t e the “humani t ar i an” j us t i fi cat i on forhi s cr i m e, s ent enci ng D efe ndantbel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes ’ r ange w oul d r equi r e i tt o “i gnor e” o r “ se t as id e ” th e u n d e rly in g c o n v ictio n . (S e n t’g T r. at 1 4 .) A s a b o v e , co n tex t is key : D efe ndant ’ s ar gum enti gnor es the cont exti n w hi ch the di s tr i ctcour tm ade th o s e s ta te m e n ts . A ft erhear i ng fr om bot h part i es ’ couns el on the var i ance i s s ue, the di s tr i ct cour tcomm ended de fens e couns el butdeci ded t o adher e t o the r ecomm endat i on of the pr e- s ent ence r eportpendi ng anys t at ementbyD efe ndant . D efe ndantthen s t at ed:I k n o w th a t I c o m m itte d a c ri m e in 2 0 0 0 . I w ill ta k e it a s a c ri m e . I w as at t empt i ng t o hel p m ypeopl e. I n the s i tuat i on thatI s aw them i n, any one w oul d have done i t . T he s i tuat i on thattheyw er e i n w as r eal l ys ad and be caus e of the w om en, I fel tm yheartbr oken. A nd the o ther situ ati o n is, the m en jum p ed into m yv an , an d I co u ldn ’t ju st g e t th e m o u t. I t o ld th e m I w a s g o in g to h a v e p ro b lem s, b u t I coul dn’ tdo anyt hi ng el s e. (Id. ) T h e d istric t co u rt sta ted th a t D e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t w o u ld re q u ire it t o “i gnor e” a nd “s etas i de” a n ot herw i s e val i d convi ct i on notbeca us e i tm i s appl i ed § 3 5 5 3 , b u t b e c a u se it i n terp re ted D e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n ts a s c o n tes tin g th e e lem e n ts- 8-

o f th e § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1)(A )(i i) co n v ict ion . T h e d istri ct co u rtstat ed , “W h at he ’s ar gui ng t o m e i s t he fa ctt hat[the others i x al i en mal es ] for ced thei rw ayi nt o the vehi cl e. ” (Id. at15. ) T hi s confus i on w as then corr ect ed bydefe ns e couns el , w ho n o te d th a t D e fe n d a n t w a s n o t c o n te s tin g th e v a lid ity o f th e c o n v ic tio n . I ti s cl eart hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s . T he di s t r i ctcourtnot ed that , even a ft err eadi ng the part i es ’ br i efs conce rni ng D efe ndant ’ s m ot i on fordow nw ar d departur e, i tdi d nots ee a “bas i s ” under§ 3553 to v a ry f ro m th e G u id e lin e s ’ r a n g e . (Id. a t 4 .) A s D e fe n d a n t’s o w n b rie f p o in ts out , nei t her§ 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) norU . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i ) r efl ectany p ro fit-m o tiv e re q u ire m e n t. T h a t li m itatio n w a s e lim in a ted f ro m th e a p p lica b le Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ pr ovi s i on i n 2003. W hi l e D efe ndantar gues that his “hu m anit ari an int ent” non et heles s w arr ants vari ance f rom the G uidel i nes’ range, w e no t e t hat D efen dan tdid not transportj ustthe tw o inj ured i l l egal al i ens, butal s o s i x, uni nj ur ed, i l l egal al i ens . T he di s tr i ctcourts t at ed thatw i th s uch a

“ se rio u s” c rim e “ [ t]h e re is n o q u e stio n a b o u t k n o w in g th e g ra v ityo f [ it] w h e n it h ap p en s. Y o u d o n ’tjust th ink : I ’ve g o t a nice h it ch h iker tha t nee d s a ride fo r a coupl e of mi l es . ” (Id . at13. ) I n addi t i on, the pr e- s ent ence r eportl i s t ed D e fe n d a n t’s fo u r D U I c o n v ictio n s, d ru g -re late d c o n v ictio n , d o m e stic a ss a u lt convi ct i on, and us e of ni ne al i as es , tw o di ffe r ents oci al s ecur i tynum ber s , and t hr ee di ffe r entdat es of bi r t h. C ons equent l y , w e do notbel i eve thatD efe ndanthas reb u tt ed the p resu m p ti o n o f re aso n ab lene ss attach ed to h is sen tenc e. M o reo v er,- 9-

even a bs entt he pr es um pt i on, w e w oul d s t i l l fi nd D efe ndant ’ s s ent ence re a s o n a b le . AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge