2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-27-2008 

# U SA v . Ozceli k
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4245

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . O z c el i k " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1088. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1088P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 06- 4245

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. H A K A N O Z C E L IK a /k /a H a k a n A sk in H akan O zce l i k, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 05- cr - 00722- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S
. H o ch b erg

A r gued February12, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , SM I T H , and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay27, 2008)

____ A d ri en n e U
. W isen b erg Sol om on L
. W i s enber g ( A r gued) W isen b erg & W isen b erg W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20036- 0000 A t t orney s forA ppel l antO zce l i k w entbythe name of A s ki n at o ne t i m e, but 1 chan ged his nam e for fam i l yreas on s. 2 Sabr i na G
. C om i zzol i ( A r gued) G eor ge S. L eone O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney N ew ark, N
. J
. 07102- 0000 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee

____

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l r ai s es , i nt eral i a, an i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n t hi s court , thati s , w hatconductcons t i tut es s hi el di ng, harbor i ng, and conc eal i ng an al i en w i thi n the meani ng of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324. I.

F ac ts an d P roc ed u ral H ist o ry I n 1 9 9 0 , a p p e l l a n tHa k a n Oz c e l i k , th e n a g e s i x t e e n , c a me t o t he U ni t ed St at es fr om T ur keyas a s t ow aw ayon a mer chant s hi p. T her eaf

t er , O zce l i k earned hi s G E D and a c ol l ege de gr ee 1 i n cr i m i nal j us t i ce, and w or ked atvar i ous j obs
. H e obt ai ned l egal A m er i can c i t i zens hi p and on D ece m ber15, 2003, he bega n w or ki ng as a C us t om s and B or derPr ot ect i on O ffi ceri n the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”)
. H e w or ked pr i nci pal l yi n Por tE l i zabe th, N ew J er s eyi ns pect i ng car go on cru ise v esse ls, b u t al so o cc asio n all yw o rke d at N ew ark A irp o rt i nspecti ng i nd i vidual passeng ers . T un c T un cer, the g ov ernm ent’ s pri ncipal w i tness, i s a T ur ki s h ci t i zen w ho came t o the U ni t ed St at es on an F- 1 s tudentA s o f M a rc h 2 0 0 3 , IN S b e c a m e U n ited S tate s C iti z e n sh ip 2 and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces , an age ncyw i thi n the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty . W e us e the t erm “I N S” or“I m m i gr at i on” thr oughoutbeca us e thati s the t erm us ed i n the r ecor d. 3 v isa to p a rticip a te in a m a ste r’s d e g re e p ro g ra m a t C o lu m b ia U n iv e rsity . W h e n T u n c e r f a iled to m e e t re q u ire d a c a d e m ic s t andar ds , C ol um bi a r efus ed hi m r eadmi s s i on, ther eby s ubj ect i ng hi m t o deport at i on forbei ng “outof s t atus . ” A pp. at 352. Shor t l yther eaf

t er , T uncerdi s cus s ed hi s i m m i gr at i on i s s ue w i th hi s fr i end, U zgarM adi k, w ho w as the Pr es i dentof the I nt er col l egi at e Turki s h Student s Soci ety . M adi k phoned O zce l i k, w ho M adi k s ai d m i ghtbe abl e t o hel p, and putT uncer on the phone. T he tw o had a s hor tconver s at i on. T uncercal l ed O zce l i k t he nextdayt o pr ovi de the i nform at i on O zce l i k had r eques t ed and O zce l i k s ai d he w oul d s ee w hathe coul d do. O zce l i k cal l ed Tuncerback the fol l ow i ng day , s t at i ng that T u n c e r’s c a se w a s “ d o a b le” o r “ e a sy ” a n d th a t all T u n c e r h a d to do w as payO zce l i k $2, 300. A pp. at220. O zce l i k t ol d T uncer the moneyhad nothi ng t o do w i th hi m , butthati tw as fortw o of hi s fr i ends i n t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) w ho w er e goi ng t o change s om e dat es i n the s y s t em for

2 T uncer ’ s vi s a. T uncert es t i fi ed thatO zce l i k t ol d hi m he had “done thi s foranothergi r l i n the pas tr ece nt l y ” and w oul d be happyt o hel p T uncerw i th hi s pr obl em. A pp. at225. T uncer sta ted th a t h e d id n o t h a v e th e m o n e ya n d w o u ld c a ll O z c e lik w h e n h e o b tain e d it. W ith in th e n e x t w e e k o r tw o , O z c e lik cal l ed Tuncers ever al t i m es as ki ng aboutthe money , butT uncer sa id h e d id n o t h a v e it an d d id n o t k n o w w h e n h e c o u ld g e t it
. O n M ar ch 14, 2005, G l enn B art l ey , an I m m i gr at i on and C u sto m s E n f

o rc e m e n t (“ IC E ” ) a g e n t, vis ited T u n c e r a n d to ld hi m he w as “outof s t atus . ” A ta s econd meet i ng the nextday B a rt le ya d m in is tr a tiv e ly ar re s te d T u n c e r b u t d id n o t d e ta in h im
. A tthatm eet i ng, the tw o di s cus s ed the pos s i bi l i tyof B art l ey r ece i vi ng i nform at i on fr om T unceraboutO zce l i k.4 Fr om M ar ch 18, 2005 unt i l M ay24, 2005, T uncer i ni t i at ed s ever al phone conve r s at i ons atthe di r ect i on of l aw e n f o rc e m e n t w h o re c o rd e d th e c o n v e rsa tio n s. T u n c e r to ld O zce l i k t hathi s i m m i gr at i on pr obl em w as “s t i l l cont i nui ng. ” A pp. at970. O zce l i k r ei t er at ed thatT uncerw oul d have t o pay atl eas t$2, 000. I n a s ubs equentr ecor ded conve r s at i on, T uncer a sk e d O z c e lik if

$ 2 ,0 0 0 w o u ld b e e n o u g h . O z c e lik re sp o n d e d : “N o i tcan’ t
. T her e i s 2000 and than [s i c] ther e i s 300 forthe f e e , the yw ill g iv e th o se , the yw ill d o th e th in g f o r y o u , the yw ill d o th e th in g f

ro m th e in sid e .” A p p . at 9 7 9 . O z c e lik n e v e r to ld T uncerthe names of the tw o fr i ends , buthe cont i nual l ys t at ed th a tth e mo n e ywa s f

o rth e m. O zc eli k an d T u n ce r arran g ed a m ee ti n g at th e N ew P o rt M al l on M ar ch 24, 2005, s o thatT uncercoul d payO zce l i k the $2, 300 fee and pr ovi de hi m w i th a copyof hi s i m m i gr at i on p a p e rw o rk . A t th a t m e e tin g , O z c e likto o k th e m o n e ya n d to ld T u n c e r th a t itw o u ld tak e a t lea st th re e m o n th s f o r a n yth in g to happen. Fol l ow i ng the meet i ng, T uncerand O zce l i k had one m or e r ecor ded phone c onver s at i on i n w hi ch Tunceras ked w hetherther e w as “anythi ng new ” and O zce l i k s ai d thathe had m ade the nec es s arycont act s and thatT uncerw oul d be the one “r ece i vi ng new s . ” A pp. at999. A s a r es ul tof thos e conve r s at i ons and the contr ol l ed m ee ti n g b etw ee n T u n ce r an d O zc eli k , a f ed era l gran d jury char ged O zce l i k i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm ent
. C ountO ne of the i ndi ctm entchar ged O zce l i k w i th s eeki ng and ac cept i ng a br i be in re tu rn f

o r b e in g in f

lu e n c e d in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

o f f icia l ac ts and bei ng i nduced t o do orom i tact s i n vi ol at i on of off i ci al d u t i e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 )
. Co u n tT wo c h a rg e d O z c e lik w ith a ttem p tin g to c o n c e a l, ha rb o r, an d sh ield f ro m d e te c tio n a n ille g a l a lie n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1)(A )(i ii ). T he j urytr i al began on M ar ch 14, 2006. W hen the governm entr es t ed, O zce l i k r es erved hi s r i ghtt o m ove for j udgm entof ac qui t t al pur s uantt o R ul e 29 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. O zce l i k ther eaf t erpr es ent ed evi dence , i ncl udi ng t es t i fy i ng on hi s ow n behal f. T he j uryconvi ct ed5 O zc eli k o n b o th co u n ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied O zc eli k ’s re n e w e d m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l. W ith reg ard to the b ri b eryco n v ict ion , the D istri ct C o u rt hel d t hatther e w as ampl e evi dence thatO zce l i k s ol i ci t ed and ac ce p ted $ 2 , 3 0 0 fro m T u n ce r. T h e C o u rtalso stat ed that there w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatO zce l i k cont empl at ed pas s i ng on s om e oral l of the $2, 300 t o otheri m m i gr at i on offi ci al s forthe purpos e of thei rt aki ng offi ci al act i on t o as s i s tT uncer . T he C our tfur therhel d t hata r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d i nfercorrupt i nt enti n s ol i ci t i ng the br i be bec aus e ther e w as s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e o f

O z c e lik ’s c o n sc io u sn e ss o f w ro n g d o in g . W ith r es pectt o t he convi ct i on fors hi el di ng/harbor i ng an al i en, the C our thel d t hatther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence thatO zce l i k gave T u n c e r m u lti p le in stru c tio n s to c o n c e a l h is a c tiv iti e s in o rd e r to av o id d etec ti o n b yim m igrati o n au tho ri ti es. T h e C o u rt char act er i zed O zce l i k’ s conductas “i ns truct i ng T uncert o hi de fr om the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es , ” A pp. at14, ther eby cons t i tut i ng the cr i m e of s hi el di ng. F o ll o w ing a se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt sen tenc ed O zc eli k
. O n the b ri b eryco n v ict ion , the C o u rt i m pos ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforobs truct i on of j us t i ce f or O zcel i k’s fal se tri al t est i m on y , res ult i ng i n an adjust ed o ffen se leve l of 1 6
. W ith resp ec t t o the s h iel d ing co n v ict ion , the C o u rt i m pos ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ementbeca us e O zce l i k abus ed a p o s itio n o f

tru s t, r e s u ltin g in a n a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l o f

1 1
. T h e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e n i e d Oz c e l i k ’ s r e q u e s tt o g r o u p th e two offe ns es pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (“U
. S
. S
. G
. ” o r “G u idelines ”) § 3 D 1
. 2
. Instea d , the C o u rt fol l ow ed the r ecomm endat i on of the Pr obat i on O ffi cer , w ho had cal cul at ed the off

ens e l evel byappl y i ng the mul t i pl e- count adj us t m entpur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 3D 1. 4, r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 17. W i th an off ens e l evel of 17 and a cr i m i nal h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f

I , O z c e l i k ’ s G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e w a s tw e n tyfourt o t hi r tym onths i m pr i s onm ent
. T he C our ts ent ence d O z c e lik to tw e n ty -se v e n m o n th s im p riso n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t, t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y.W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 and 18 3 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a). 6 O zce l i k appea l s . H e ar gues thatthe evi dence w as 3 in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in b o th th e b ri b e ry a n d s h ie ld in g c o n v ic tio n s . H e al s o ar gues thatthe C our terr ed i n defi ni ng the t erm “off i ci al act ” i n i t s i ns truct i ons t o the j ury . Fi nal l y , O zce l i k cont ends that the C our terr ed bynotgr oupi ng hi s offe ns es ats ent enci ng. II. S u ff ici en cyo f E v iden ce o n C o u n t O n e - B ri b ery I ti s bl ack l ett erl aw thati n or dert o convi cta def endant the g ov ernm ent m ustprove e ach elem ent of a charged off ense bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. See I n r e W i ns hi p, 397 U
. S. 358, 364 ( 1970)
. W e appl ya def er ent i al s t andar d i n det erm i ni ng w hethera j ury ’ s ver di ctr es t s on s uffi ci entevi dence
. V i ew i ng th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e g o v e rn me n t , we w i l l s us t ai n a def

endant ’ s convi ct i on i f “a nyr at i onal tr i erof fa ct coul d have f

ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. V oi ght , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U
. S. 307, 319 ( 1979) )
. A n appel l antr ai s i ng a cl ai m of i ns uffi ci encyof the e v id e n c e b e a rs a “ v e ryh e a v yb u rd e n .” U n ited S tate s v . D e n t, 1 4 9 F
. 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A l though w e bel i eve thatthe i s s ue of the s uffi ci encyof evi dence t o pr ove br i beryi s a verycl os e one, w e ca nnot di s r egar d t hata j uryconvi ct ed O zce l i k of br i beryi n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 0 1 (b)(2 ). T h at st atute p rov ides that w h o ev er: b e in g a p u b lic o f

f icia l o r p e rso n se lec ted to b e a p u b lic off i ci al , dir ect l yor i nd i rect l y , corrup t l ydem and s, seeks, r ece i ves , acc ept s , oragr ees t o r ece i ve oracc eptanythi ng o f v a lu e p e rso n a llyo r f

o r a n yo th e r p e rso n o r e n tity , in return fo r: ( A ) bei ng i nfl uence d i n the per form ance of any o f f icia l ac t;O zce l i k t es t i fi ed at tr i al that he never r ece i ved the money 4 f ro m T u n c e r. H o w e v e r, T u n c e r tes tifie d th a t h e h a d g iv e n O z c e lik $2, 300 atthei rm eet i ng atthe N ew Por tM al l
. I C E agent s gave T uncerthe $2, 300 i n cas h that he t ook t o the meet i ng w i th O zce l i k. A l though t he age nt s could n o t se e the moneychange hands fr om thei rs ur vei l l ance pos i t i ons , the age nt s patt ed do w n T u ncerw hen he r eturned t o thei rvehi cl e fol l ow i ng the exc hang e and ver i fi ed thatnei therthe ca s h nor the i m m i gr at i on document s he had t aken t o gi ve t o O zce l i k w er e on hi s per s on. I n addi t i on, the conve r s at i on dur i ng t he exc hange be tw een Tuncerand O zc el i k w as r ecor ded. D ur i ng thatconver s at i on T un ceras ked O zce l i k i f he w oul d “l i ke t o count ” the money
. A pp. at 9 9 5
. O zc el i k r es ponded, “N o, no, 7 (B ) b e in g in f

lu e n c e d to c o m m it o r a id in comm i t t i ng, ort o col l ude i n, oral l ow , anyfr aud, or m ake opportuni tyforthe comm i s s i on of anyfr aud, on the U ni t ed St at es ; or (C ) b e in g in d u c e d to d o o r o m it t o d o a n ya c t in vi ol at i on of the off

i ci al dutyof s uch off

i ci al or p e rs o n ; . . .
s hal l be fi ned underthi s t i t l e . . . ori m pr i s oned fornot m o re th a n f

if te e n y e a rs , o r b o th
. . . . 18 U
. S. C
. § 201( b) ( 2)
. T he governm entm us tpr ove thatthe publ i c off

i ci al t ook ors oughtthe funds forone of the thr ee purpos es enumer at ed i n s ubs ect i ons ( A ) , ( B ) , and ( C ) i n the s t atut e.U nder§ 201( b) ( 2) , ther e ar e thr ee e s s ent i al el ement s that m us tbe met : ( 1) defe ndantm us tbe a publ i c off i ci al , ( 2) w ho di r ect l yori ndi r ect l ydemanded, s ought , r ece i ved, acc ept ed, or agr eed t o r ece i ve oracc eptanythi ng of val ue per s onal l yorfor anyot herper s on orent i ty , and ( 3) di d s o s peci fi cal l yforone of the thr ee c orruptpurpos es s etfor th i n s ubs ect i ons ( A ) thr ough ( C)
. S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Or e n u g a , 4 3 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 6 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. T h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n th a tOz c e l i k me tth e f i r s ttwo el ement s : he i s a publ i c off i ci al and he r ece i ved moneyfr om T u n c e r. T h e th ird e lem e n t g o e s to O z c e lik ’s in ten t.

4no. . . . I bel i eve y ou . . . . ” A pp. at995
. A n y rea sonabl e j ur or coul d have f

ound t hat the s econd el ement had bee n m etbas ed upon th e a m p le e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t trial. 8 T h u s th e o n lyd isp u ted iss u e is w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is s uffi ci entt o pr ove thatO zce l i k r ece i ved Tuncer ’ s m oneyw i th a corrupti nt ent , thati s , he di d s o forone of the thr ee r eas ons p ro h ib ited b ysta tu te. T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t O z c e lik vi ol at ed the s t atut e underboth s ubs ect i on ( A ) and s ubs ect i on ( C ) , i
. e. , thathe s oughtthe br i be t o be i nfl uence d i n the p erf o rm an ce o f a n o ff

ici al ac t and that h e too k the b ri b e c o n tr ary t o hi s offi ci al dutyt o uphol d the i m m i gr at i on l aw . I tar gues that O z c e lik ’s c o n sc io u sn e ss o f w ro n g d o in g is re f

lec ted b yh is c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts to T u n c e r to c o n c e a l th e ir a rra n g e m e n t. Sect i on 201( a) ( 3) defi nes “off i ci al act ” as “anydeci s i on oract i on on anyques t i on, m att er , caus e, s ui t , pr ocee di ng or contr over s y , w hi ch mayatanyt i m e be pe ndi ng, orw hi ch mayby law b e b rou g h t bef

o re a n yp u b li c o ff

ici al, in su ch o ff

ici al’s offi ci al capa ci ty , ori n s uch off i ci al ’ s pl ace of trus torpr ofi t
. ” 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2 0 1 (a)(3). T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t O z c e lik w a s g u iltyu n d e r th is s t atut orys ect i on “i n t w o non- m utual l yexcl us i ve w ay s . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at28. Fi r s t , he had the corrupti nt entt o t ake o f f i c i a l a c t i o n d i r e c t l yb ya c t i n g “ i n h i s c a p a c i tya s a DHS e m p lo y e e [ to a g re e ] to tak e o f f icia l ac tio n to re q u e st o th e rs in D H S f o r o f f ic ia l a id f

o r T u n c e r,” a n d , if

n e e d b e , to in te rv e n e . A ppel l ee’ s B r . at28. “Second, O zce l i k, as a mi ddl eman, agr eed to im p o rtu n e o th e r Im m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls to tak e o f

f icia l ac tio n to a ss ist T u n c e r.” A p p e llee ’s B r. at 2 8 . B o th th e o rie s re q u ire u s to c o n sid e r w h a t is th e “ o f f icia l ac tio n ” O z c e lik to o k to f a ll w ith in the br i berys t atut e. O n t hi s r ecor d, the j urycoul d fi nd thatO zce l i k as ked otheri ndi vi dual s w i thi n D H S t o t ake of fi ci al act i on on behal f of T uncer ; thus both t heor i es bl end t ogetheri nt o one theoryof a id in g a n d a b e tti n g o th e r u n id e n tifie d Im m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls to t ake of fi ci al act i on t o al t erT uncer ’ s r ecor ds
. A s the governm ent9 sta ted a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e re is o n lyo n e p iec e o f e v id e n c e to sh o w that su ch Im m igrati o n o ff ici als ev en ex ist ed – O zc eli k ’s o wn s t a t e me n t s t o T u n c e rth a th e h a d a f r i e n d wi th i n th e I NS w ho w ou l d u nd ert ake to al t er Tu ncer’ s vi sa st atus. W e v iew th e iss u e b e f

o re u s in lig h t o f

o u r o b lig a tio n to “vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent and [t o] s us t ai n a j ury ’ s ver di cti f ‘ a r eas onabl e j urybel i evi ng the governm ent ’ s evi dence coul d fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt thatthe governm entpr oved al l the el ement s of the off ens e[ ]
. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. R os ar i o, 118 F. 3d 160, 163 ( 3d C i r . 1997) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . S alm o n , 9 4 4 F
. 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 3 (3d C ir
. 19 91 ))
. W e m ust“def

er t o the j ury ’s asses sm ent of w i tness cr edi bi l i ty ” and r ecogni ze that“the governm ent ’ s pr oof nee d not excl ude eve r ypos s i bl e hypothes i s of i nnocenc e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. B al a, 236 F. 3d 87, 93- 94 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). O ne w ho ai ds and abe t s anotheri s as gui l tyof the under l y i ng offe ns e as the pr i nci pal
. U ni t ed St at es v. D i xon, 658 F. 2d 181, 191 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( hol di ng thatm i ddl eman w ho fac i l i t at ed br i beryof governm entoffi ci al w as l i abl e as ai derand abett or )
. T o pr ove thatO zce l i k ai ded and a bett ed another , the g o v e rn m e n t m u st p ro v e th a t th e o th e r, i. e ., th e p rin c ip a l (in th is c a se th e u n n a m e d f

rie n d a t IN S ), co m m itt e d a ll o f th e e lem e n ts of the off

ens e. U ni t ed St at es v. C ades , 495 F. 2d 1166, 1167 ( 3d C i r . 1974) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. N ol an, 718 F. 2d 589, 592 ( 3d C i r . 1983)
. N ot abl y , the off ens e i s comm i t t ed w hen the offi ci al ( her e, the unnamed I N S offi ci al ) agr ees t o acc eptthe b ri b e in e x ch an g e f

o r pro m isi n g to ca rryo u t on e o f th e statuto ry pr ohi bi t i ons ( i
. e. , the pr om i s e t o al t erT uncer ’ s vi s a) ; i ti s not nece s s aryt o actual l yper form the pr ohi bi t ed ac t
. See O r enuga, 430 F. 3d at1166 ( s t at i ng that“‘ acc ept ance of the br i be i s the vi ol at i on of the s t atut e, notper form ance of the i l l egal pr om i s e’ ”) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . B rew ster, 4 0 8 U
. S
. 5 0 1 , 5 2 6 (19 7 2 )). T he evi dence attr i al w as as fol l ow s : T uncert es t i fi ed that O zce l i k t ol d hi m thathe w oul d getotherauthor i t i es at Im m ig ra tio n to c h a n g e T u n c e r’s v isa sta tu s s o th a t h e c o u ld r emai n i n t he countr y . D ur i ng the M ar ch 23 r ecor ded t el ephoneT h e g o v e rn m e n t an d O z c e lik e a c h su b m itt e d slig h tly 5 di ffe r entver s i ons of the r ecor ded tr ans cr i pt s . T her e i s no s ubs t ant i ve di ffe r ence betw een the tw o. 10 conver s at i on, O cze l i k s ai d that“theyw i l l gi ve thos e, theyw i l l do the thi ng fory ou, theyw i l l do the thi ng fr om the i ns i de. ” A pp. a t 9 7 9
. A t th e M a rc h 2 4 m e e tin g , O z c e lik sta ted , “th e o n ly

5 thi ng I know i s thatthe per s on I know w i l l do s om ethi ng fory ou fr om the I N S. ” A pp. at986. L at eri n the s ame conver s at i on, O z c e l i k s a i d , “ A tl e a s t3 m o n th s , 3 m o n th s w i l l h a v e t o g o b y, beca us e thes e ki nd of thi ngs have a cert ai n w ay , i tw i l l be i n the s y s te m , th e re a re a lo t o f p e o p le in f

ro n t o f y o u in th e s y s te m . H e nee ds t o do s om ethi ng w i thi n thats y s t em, do y ou under s t and w hatI m ean?” A pp. at987. I n a l at err ecor ded t el ephone conver s at i on on M ay24, T unceras ked foras s ur ance that O zce l i k had s poken w i th hi s fr i end atthe I N S and thatthe fr i end had undert aken t o hel p. O zce l i k w as r el uct antt o t al k abouts uch m att er s byphone butdi d confi r m thathe had “ cont act ed the peopl e i n ques t i on” forT uncerand thatT uncer“s houl d be the one r ece i vi ng new s . ” A pp. at999. I n addi t i on, T uncert es t i fi ed attr i al thati n one of the e a rlier , u n re c o rd e d tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n s, O z c e lik h a d to ld h im th a t h is c a s e w a s “ d o a b le ,” i.e ., “ e a s yf o r h im .” A p p . a t 2 2 0
. T uncert es t i fi ed thatO zce l i k had as ked hi m for$2, 300, and T unceras ked w hatthe moneyw as for
. O zce l i k r epl i ed thatthe m oney“w as fortw o of hi s fr i ends w ho w or ked .
. . atI N S and theyw er e goi ng t o change s om e dat es w i thi n the s y s t em for [Tuncer ’ s ] vi s a. ” A pp. at221. If th e ju ryb e liev e d th a t ev id e n c e , itc o u ld re a so n a b ly h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a tOz c e l i k h a d a c o n t a c t( o rc o n t a c t s ) a tI NS w hom he ai ded i n t aki ng a br i be t o vi ol at e the cont act ’ s offi ci al du ty . T he ev i den ce t hat the fri end had un dert aken t o ad j ust T uncer ’ s vi s a s t atus w as O zce l i k’ s ow n s t at ement s t o T uncer thathi s fr i end w as goi ng t o adj us tthe vi s a w i thi n the s y s t em for T u n c e r. A lth o u g h th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e f rie n d a c tu a lly ad justed the v isa statu s, there is ev iden ce fro m w h ich th e jury coul d i nferthatthe fr i end agr eed t o adj us tthe vi s a, and i tw as at11 that poi nt that the cri m e of the pri ncipal w as com plet e. B ecause th e re w a s s u f

f icie n t ev id e n c e f

ro m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld ra tio n a llyc o n c lu d e th a t O z c e lik h a d in d u c e d a f rie n d a t IN S to al t erT uncer ’ s s t atus i n excha nge fora br i be, ther e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence t o s uppor tO zce l i k’ s gui l ton a theoryof ai di ng and abett i ng. O zcel i k argue s that there i s i nsuff i ci ent evi den ce bec ause th e g o v e rn m e n t co u ld n o t n a m e a sp e c if ic o f f icia l w h o m O z c e lik ai ded and a bett ed and ther e i s no evi dence thats uch unnamed offi ci al actual l yadj us t ed the vi s a. O zce l i k r ai s es an i ntr i gui ng ar gum ent
. W e agr ee thati ti s pos s i bl e thatther e w as no “fr i end” a t th e IN S a n d th a t O z c e lik w a s ly in g to T u n c e r b ytellin g h im th a t h is f rie n d a t th e IN S w o u ld a d ju st T u n c e r’s sta tu s, w h e n , in r eal i ty , O zce l i k i nt ended t o keep the moneyw i thoutt aki ng any act i on t o adj us tT uncer ’ s s t atus . I ndeed, the onl yevi dence the g o v e r n me n tp r o d u c e d a ttr i a l th a tth e u n n a me d f r i e n d a tI NS ex ist ed w as O zc eli k ’s ow n stat em en ts t o that ef fe ct. B u t w e a re notperm i t t ed t o as s es s cr edi bi l i ty . A nd as s uch, w e ca nnots ay as a mat t erof l aw thatno r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d acc eptthe go vernm ent’ s theo ryprem i sed up on O zcel i k’s ow n st at em ents
. A lth o u g h w e a re c o n c e rn e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t co u ld n o t, thro u g h it s inv esti g ati o n , d isco v er the iden ti tyo f O zc eli k ’s acqua i nt ance atI N S, thatconce rn does notw arr antoverturni ng O zce l i k’ s convi ct i on. A ft eral l , O zce l i k’ s ow n w or ds pr ovi de the mi s s i ng l i nk and he di d acc eptthe moneyT uncerpai d forthe p e rf o rm a n c e o f

th e o f f icia l ac t. O z c e lik p ro f

f e re d a n a lte rn a tiv e v ie w o f th e e v id e n c e , i.e ., that he sol i ci t ed the m on eyt o p rocure a l aw y er nam ed S ol K od si t o as s i s tT uncer . K ods i t es t i fi ed thatO zce l i k had r eques t ed that h e re p rese n t T u n ce r an d that h e h ad told O zc eli k that T u n ce r’s cas e w oul d pr obabl ycos t$2000 pl us $300 forthe fi l i ng fee and m ai l i ngs . K ods i t es t i fi ed thati f Tuncerbr oughthi m $2, 300 he w o u ld “ p ro b a b ly m o re th a n lik e ly ta k e h is c a s e .” A p p . a t 5 8 8
. K o d si a lso tes tifie d th a t h e h a d m a d e a n a p p o in tm e n t w ith T uncerthr ough O zce l i k forM ar ch 25, 2005. T h e ju ryw a s f

re e to re jec t K o d si’s tes tim o n y , p a rticu lar ly12 in lig h t o f

th e a b se n c e o f

a n ye v id e n c e th a t K o d si e v e r sp o k e to T uncerorthatO zce l i k evercomm uni cat ed anyi nform at i on aboutK ods i t o T uncer . I ns t ead, O zce l i k’ s s t at ement s t o T uncer w er e al w ay s i n t erm s of hi s I N S cont act s . Forexampl e, he s t at ed that“theyw i l l do the thi ng fory ou, theyw i l l do the thi ng fro m the in side
. ” A p p . at 97 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). M o reo v er, al though K ods i t es t i fi ed he w as a l ongt i m e fr i end of O zce l i k, O zce l i k had s t at ed i n one r ecor ded conve r s at i on thathe w as “not verycl os e” t o t he ones w ho w oul d be hel pi ng T uncer , A pp. at 9 9 1 , the re b yth ro w in g in to q u e stio n th e a lleg e d d isc u ss io n w ith K ods i
. A l though O zce l i k m ayhave gi ven a vi abl e expl anat i on f o r th e re q u e st f

o r f u n d s, w e c a n n o t sa yth a t itw a s u n re a so n a b le f o rth e j u r y t o r e

j e c ti ti n f

a v o ro f th e g o v e rn m e n t ’ s th e o ry. O zce l i k ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ychar ged th e ju ry o n th e m e a n in g o f “ o f f ic ia l a c t” a s u s e d in § 2 0 1 (b )( 2 ). B e c a u se O z c e lik d id n o t o b jec t to th e ju ryin stru c tio n s a t trial, and i ndeed, m ade a j oi ntr eques ti n favorof the veryi ns truct i on ati s s ue, w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. W ol fe, 245 F. 3d 257, 260- 61 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. A “pl ai n err or ” i s one that aff ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 )). A n e rro r a f f e c ts “ ‘su b sta n tial rig h ts’ if it w as pr ej udi ci al i n t hati taff ect ed the out come of t he D i s tr i ct C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . a t 2 6 1 (c itin g O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 3 ). I ti s the def

endant ’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h thatthe err orpr ej udi ced the j ury ’ s ver di ct
. I d. St i l l , “[e ] ven i f the def endantes t abl i s hes the exi s t ence of pl ai n err or , R ul e 52( b) l eave s t o the s ound d isc re tio n o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls th e d e c isio n w h e th e r to c o rre c t th e e rro r. W h ile th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s th e a u th o rity t o or dercorr ect i on w hen thes e el ement s ar e met , i ti s not re q u ir e d to d o s o .” Id
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tchar ged the j uryon the def i ni t i on of “off i ci al act ” as foll ow s: A n offi ci al actm eans anydeci s i on oractoranyques t i on orm att erw hi ch atanyt i m e maybe pendi ng orw hi ch may byl aw be br oughtbefor e anypubl i c off i ci al i n hi s orher capa ci tyori n hi s orherpl ace of trus t
. T he t erm quot e, “ o f f icia l ac t,” in c lu d e s th e d e c isio n s o r a c tio n s g e n e ra lly13 expec t ed of a publ i c off i ci al
. T hes e dec i s i ons oract i ons d o n o t n e e d to b e sp e c if ica llyd e sc rib e d in a n ylaw , ru le orj ob des cr i pt i on t o be cons i der ed an quot e, “off i ci al a c t,” e n d q u o te. O f

f icia l ac ts th a t v io late a n o f f icia l d u ty a lso a re n o t li m ited to th o se w ith in th e o f f icia l’s s p e c if

ic a u th o r i ty. A p p . at 11 4 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he rel evan tst atute defi nes “of fi ci al act ” as:

a n yd e c isio n o r a c tio n o n a n yq u e stio n , m a tter, c a u se , su it, pr ocee di ng orcontr over s y , w hi ch mayatanyt i m e be pendi ng, orw hi ch maybyl aw be br oughtbefor e any p u b lic o f f icia l, i n su c h o f

f icia l’s o f f icia l ca p a c ity , o r in su c h o f f icia l’s p lac e o f

tru st o r p ro f

it. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 0 1 (a )(3 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e e rro r, O z c e lik cl ai m s , i s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ys ubs t i tut ed the w o rd s “ in h is o r h e r c a p a c ity ” f o r th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e , “in s uch off i ci al ’ s offi ci al capa ci ty . ” H e ar gues thatthe s ubs t i tut i on e lim in a ted th e re q u ire m e n t th a t h e n e e d e d to tak e a c tio n in h is offi ci al capa ci tyand i ns t ead i m pl i ed thathe onl yhad t o t ake a c t i o n i n s o m e u n s p e c i f i e d c a p a c i ty. T h e g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t th e o m issi o n o f th e w o rd “o ff ici al” w as th e sten o g rap h er’s erro r, an d that at tri al th e C o u rt r ead the i ns truct i on cont ai ni ng the w or d “off i ci al
. ” I ndeed, the governm entfi l ed a mot i on t o corr ectthe r ecor d i n the D i s tr i ct C o u rt , arg u ing that in f

ac t, the C o u rth ad u sed the w o rd “o ff ici al” b ef

o re c ap ac ityw h en itch arg ed the ju ry . T h e C o u rt co n clud ed , b ase d u p o n the testi m o n yo f th e c o u rtsten o g rap h er, thatther e w as a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatther e had be en a m i s t ake i n t he tr ans cr i pt
. I n addi t i on, the w r i t t en copyof the instruction s the C o u rtg av e the juro rs co n tai n ed the w o rd “o ff ici al” a n d the C o u rth ad n o rec o ll ec ti o n o f o m itti n g the w o rd
“ o f f ic ia l.” W e def ert o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thati tdi d r ead t o t he j urythe w or d “off i ci al
. ” M or eover , the j ur or s had copi es14 o f th e in stru c tio n s th a t co n tain e d th e w o rd “ o f f icia l.” O z c e lik has notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng thatthe al l eged e rr or subst anti al l yaffected t he o utcom e of the proceed i ng s. III . Suffi ci encyof Evi dence on C ountT w o - Shi el di ng/ H arbor i ng/ C oncea l i ng I n hi s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al , O zce l i k ar gued th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f

a iled to p ro v e th a t h e a ttem p ted to c o n c e a l, harbor , ors hi el d fr om det ent i on an i l l egal al i en. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed thatm ot i on, concl udi ng thatO zce l i k had t aken s ubs t ant i al s t eps t o conce al T uncerbeca us e he t ol d hi m t o “s t ay l ow keyfor5- 6 m onths ” and nott o “go l eftand r i ghta l ot
. ” A pp. at14. O zce l i k r ai s es the s ame i s s ue on appe al , ar gui ng that hi s conduct , i
. e. , t el l i ng T uncert o keep a l ow pr ofi l e and not dr aw att ent i on t o hi m s el f, and s t at i ng thati tw as good thathe l i ved ata di ffe r entaddr es s than thaton fi l e w i th the I N S, does n o tc o n s t i tu t e h a rb o r i n g , c o n c e a l i n g , o rs h i e l d i n g u n d e r8 U. S
. C. § 1324. T he governm entr es ponds thatO zce l i k’ s gener al advi ce t o T uncers ubs t ant i al l yfac i l i t at ed Tuncer ’ s r emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y , and ther efor e cons t i tut es s hi el di ng, harbor i ng, and conc eal i ng under§ 1324. T he ques t i on of w hatconductcons t i tut es s hi el di ng, harbor i ng, and conc eal i ng w i thi n the meani ng of § 1324 i s an is s u e o f f ir s t im p re s s io n in th is c o u rt . T h e s ta tu te , 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )(1 )(A )(iii), pr o v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: A nyper s on w ho .
. . know i ng ori n r eckl es s di s r egar d of th e f a c t th a t an a lien h a s c o m e to , en ter e d , o r re m a in s in the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of l aw , conce al s , harbor s , or s hi el ds fr om det ect i on, oratt empt s t o conce al , harbor , or s hi el d fr om det ect i on, s uch al i en i n anypl ace , i ncl udi ng anybui l di ng oranym eans of tr ans por t at i on . . . s hal l be p u n is h e d
. . . . T u n c e rwa s a n i l l e g a l a l i e n i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . He t es t i fi ed atO zce l i k’ s tr i al thathe had r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of the t erm s of hi s s tudentvi s a. I n addi t i on,15 O zce l i k di d notcont es tthathe knew thatT uncerw as an i l l egal a lien . In d e e d , at O z c e lik ’s tria l T u n c e r te stif ied th a t h e h a d to ld O zce l i k t hathe r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of the ter m s o f h is s tu d e n t v isa . T h u s, th e o n lyiss u e o n a p p e a l is w hetherO zce l i k’ s conductt ow ar ds T uncercons t i tut ed c o n c e a lin g , h a rb o rin g , sh ield in g , o r a ttem p tin g to c o n c e a l, harbor , ors hi el d. I ti s an i s s ue thathas occupi ed the att ent i on of several app el l at e cou rt s. T h e o rig in a l 1 9 0 7 v e rsio n o f th e sta tu te p ro h ib ited o n ly the s m uggl i ng orunl aw ful br i ngi ng of al i ens i nt o the U ni t ed S tat es. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez , 5 2 1 F
. 2 d 4 3 7 , 4 3 9 (2d C ir
. 1975)
. I n 1917, the s t atut e w as amended t o add conc eal i ng or harbor i ng as a cr i m e, butno puni s hm entatt ache d t o conce al i ng or harbori ng , on l yt o sm ug gli ng . Id. In U nit ed S t at es v. E van s, 333 U
. S. 483, 484, 488 ( 1948) , the Supr eme C our tdi s cus s ed the le g is la tiv e h is to ry o f

a p ri o r v e rs io n o f

§ 1 3 2 4 , th e n 8 U .S .C . § 144. T he C our ts t at ed that“the s ect i on as or i gi nal l yenac t ed w as l i m i t ed t o act s of s m uggl i ng. A nd ther e i s s om e evi dence i n the l egi s l at i ve hi s t orythatthe addi t i on of conc eal i ng orharbor i ng w a s m e a n t to b e lim ited to th o se a c ts o n lyw h e n c lo se ly connec t ed w i th br i ngi ng i n orl andi ng, s o as t o m ake a chai n of offe ns es cons i s t i ng of s ucce s s i ve s t ages i n the s m uggl i ng pr oces s . ” I d. at488. B ut , the C our tnot ed, the evi dence w as not concl us i ve r egar di ng C ongr es s ’ i nt entas t o the cons truct i on of th e th e n -c u rre n t v e rsio n o f th e sta tu te; it c o u ld b e c o n stru e d to cr i m i nal i ze a s a s epar at e off ens e, di s t i nctfr om s m uggl i ng, the ac t of h arb o ri n g o r co n ce ali n g an ali en rem ainin g in the co u n try ill e g a lly . Id . T h e 1 9 1 7 v e rsio n o f th e sta tu te w a s a t issu e in E vans . Si gni fi cant l y , C ongr es s amended the s t atut e af t erthe deci s i on i n E vans . T he congr es s i onal debat es focus ed on the nece s s i tyof a s t atut orypr ohi bi t i on forthos e w ho “w i l ful l yand know i ngl y ” conc eal orharboran i l l egal al i en, s uch as thos e w ho pr ovi de s hel t erforal i ens . L opez, 521 F. 2d at440. C o n g re ss a m e n d e d th e sta tu te in 1 9 5 2 b ym e a n s o f P u b lic L a w 2 8 3 , w h ich a p p lied a p e n a ltyto sh ield in g /h a rb o rin g a s w e ll as t o t he ac tof s m uggl i ng. T he r el evantpr ovi s i ons of the 1952 s t atut e pr ovi ded: “A nyper s on . . . w ho .
. . w i l l ful l yor know i ngl yconce al s , harbor s , ors hi el ds fr om det ect i on, or16 att empt s t o conce al , harbor , ors hi el d fr om det ect i on, i n any pl ace , i ncl udi ng anybui l di ng oranym eans or[s i c] tr ans por t at i on

. . . s hal l be puni s hed bya fi ne notexce edi ng $2, 000 orby i m pr i s onm entfora t erm notexce edi ng fi ve y ear s , orboth, for eac h al i en i n r es pectt o w hom anyvi ol at i on of thi s s ubs ect i on o c c u rs . . . . ” A c t o f

M a r. 2 0 , 1 9 5 2 , P u b . L . N o . 8 2 -2 8 3 , 6 6 S tat. 26 ( 1952) ( curr entver s i on at8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) )
. T he leg isla tiv e h isto rysu g g e ste d th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to s tr engthen the l aw i n “pr event i ng al i ens fr om ent er i ng or rem ainin g in the U n it ed S tat es il lega ll y . ” Id
. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he amended s t atut e w as cons i der ed bythe C our tof A p p ea ls fo r th e S ec o n d C ir cu itin L o p ez , 5 2 1 F
. 2 d at 43 7
. In l i ghtof the amendm entthatcourtconcl uded thatthe s t atut e w as n o t li m ited to in sta n c e s o f h a rb o rin g in c o n n e c tio n w ith sm u g g li n g . Id. at 44 0 -41
. T h e c o u rth eld th at pro v iding sh elt er, obt ai ni ng empl oym ent , pr ovi di ng tr ans por t at i on t o and fr om w or k, and arr angi ng s ham m arr i ages fori l l egal al i ens w as conductt endi ng t o s ubs t ant i al l yfac i l i t at e the al i ens ’ r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y . I d. at441. I n a l at erdeci s i on, the Second C i r cui tannounce d the fol l ow i ng t es tfordet erm i ni ng w h at co n sti tutes sh iel d ing , co n ce ali n g , an d h arb o ri n g u n d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324: “harbor i ng, w i thi n the meani ng of § 1324, en co m p asse s co n d u ct t en d ing su b stan ti all yto f ac il it ate a n ali en ’s r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l yand t o pr event governm entauthor i t i es fr om det ect i ng hi s unl aw ful pr es ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K i m , 193 F. 3d 567, 574 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( emphasi s added) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. C antu, 557 F. 2d 1173, 1180 ( 5th C i r . 1977) ( s t at i ng thatpr opert es ti s w hether ch arg ed co n d u ct t en d ed “su b stan ti all yto f ac il it ate a n ali en ’s r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y ”) ( quot i ng L opez, 521 F
. 2 d at 44 1 ). C o n v ictio n s u n d e r § 1 3 2 4 g e n e ra llyin v o lv e d e f e n d a n ts w ho pr ovi de i l l egal al i ens w i th aff i r m at i ve as s i s t ance , s uch as shel t er, transport at i on , dir ect i on abo ut how t o o btai n fals e d o c u m e n ta tio n , o r w a rn in g s a b o u t im p e n d in g in v e s tig a tio n s . See gene r al l yi d. at1175- 76, 1180; U ni t ed St at es v. A cos t a de E v an s, 5 3 1 F
. 2 d 4 2 8 (9th C ir
. 1 9 7 6 ); L o p ez , 5 2 1 F
. 2 d at 43 7
. In contr as t , w e have found no ca s es i n w hi ch a de fenda nthas been17 c o n v icte d u n d e r th is s tatu te f o r m e re lyg iv in g a n a lien a d v ice to l a yl ow and t o s t a ya w a yfr om t he a dd r e s s on fi l e w i th the I N S, o b v i o u s i n f

o r ma t i o n th a ta n yf

u g i t i v e wo u l d k n o w. F o r e x a m p le, in K im , the d e f e n d a n t K im o rd e re d h is empl oy ee, an i l l egal al i en, t o r eportfal s el yt o the I N S t hathe had b e e n ter m in a ted f

ro m h is jo b , an d K im re q u ire d th e e m p lo y e e to obt ai n fal s e document at i on forthe purpos e of mi s l eadi ng the I N S. K i m , 193 F. 3d at575. T he courthel d thatK i m ’ s conduct m e t th e d e f

in iti o n o f h a rb o rin g u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 b e c a u se it t ended s ubs t ant i al l yt o fac i l i t at e the al i en’ s r emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y . I d. I n eff ect , K i m di r ect ed hi s al i enempl oy ee t o obt ai n fal s e document at i on as a condi t i on of r et ai ni ng hi s empl oym entand gave det ai l ed di r ect i on abouthow to a f f irm a tiv e lym isle a d th e IN S . T h e in stru c tio n w a s s p e c if ic a n d in v o lv e d f

a lsif y in g d o c u m e n ts. O z c e lik ’s c o n d u c t h e re is n o t co m p a ra b le. H e m e re lyp a ss e d a lo n g g e n e ra l in f o rm a tio n to T un cer and m ade n o sug gest i on s r egardi ng fal si fy i ng do cum ents
. In a n o th e r c a se ill u stra tin g th e typ e o f c o n d u c t th a t f

a lls w i thi n t he s t atut e, U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez , 963 F. 2d 152, 154- 55 ( 8th C i r . 1992) , the def endantSanchez pr ovi ded i l l egal al i ens w ith a p a rtm e n ts a n d im m ig ra tio n p a p e rs. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls agr eed thatthi s j us t i fi ed Sanche z’ s convi ct i on fors hi el di ng, harbor i ng, orconce al i ng under§ 1324. I d. at155- 56. I n y et anotherdeci s i on, U ni t ed St at es v. V arkony i , 645 F. 2d 453, 459 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) , th e d e f

e n d a n tf o r c i b l yi n t e r f

e r e d wi th I NS agent s t o pr eventthe al i ens ’ appr ehens i on. I n addi t i on, the defe ndantpr ovi ded both empl oym entand l odgi ng t o the al i ens and as s i s t ed atl eas tone of them t o es cape fr om I N S cus t ody
. I d. It is tru e , as th e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s, th a t so m e a c tiv ity s hor tof pr ovi di ng s hel t erw oul d vi ol at e the s t atut e. I n U ni t ed S tat es v . R u b io-G o n za lez, 67 4 F
. 2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 6 9 -70 (5th C ir
. 1982) , s ever al I N S agent s undert ook t o i nves t i gat e w hether cert ai n empl oy ees ata Texas w or k s i t e w er e i l l egal al i ens . U pon ent er i ng the w or k ar ea, one age nts t opped R ubi o- G onzal ez a nd as ked hi m fori dent i fi cat i on. T he i dent i fi cat i on es t abl i s hed that R ubi o- G onzal ez w as a l egal r es i dent
. A s the age nt s pr ocee ded to lo o k f o r o th e r e m p lo y e e s, R u b io -G o n z a lez sp e d a w a yo n h isR ubi o- G onzal ez i nvol ved i nt erpr et at i on of an o lder 6 versi on of the st atute butthe re lev ant l ang uag e w as al m ost id e n tic a l. C o m p a re 6 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 9 n .1 (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a)(3)), w ith 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 (a)(1)(A )(i ii ). 18 m ot or cy cl e t o anotherpartof the w or k s i t e. H e then bega n speaking loudlyand m aking ge stures t ow ards the IN S agen t s, t el l i ng tw o o ther i nd i vidual s ( l at er pr ov en to be i l l egal al i ens) thatthe i m m i gr at i on author i t i es w er e pr es ent
. T he tw o al i ens then fl ed. I d. at1070. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t R u b io-G o n za lez’s conducti n al ert i ng the i l l egal al i ens t o fl ee f r om i nves t i gat i ng I N S offi cer s cons t i tut ed “s hi el di ng fr om det ect i on” w i thi n the m eani ng of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324. I d. at1072. T he courtr eas oned 6 thats hi el di ng does noti m pl y“anyr equi r ementthata phy s i cal barr i erof s om e ki nd be i nvol ved, ” nordoes i ti m pl ythata tr i ck orart i fi ce be us ed. I d. I n R ubi o- G onzal ez, ther e w as an i m m edi at e thr eatt o the ill e g a l alie n s, th a t is, the p h y sic a l p re se n c e o f th e IN S a g e n ts w ho i nt ended t o appr ehend i l l egal al i ens . R ubi o- G onzal ez, w ho h a d k n o w led g e o f

th e im m in e n c e o f

th e a p p re h e n sio n , ac tiv e ly soug ht outi l l egal al i ens and al ert ed them
. T here w as a cl ose t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een the thr eatt o the i l l egal al i ens and the w arni ngs the def

endantundert ook t o s pr ead. I n addi t i on, the defe ndant ’ s conductw as an af fi r m at i ve and a ct i ve r es pons e t o an im p e n d in g th re a t. I n contr as t , her e ther e i s no evi dence thatO zce l i k knew aboutanyi m m i nentthr eatt o T uncer ’ s i m m i gr at i on s t atus . N or i s ther e anyevi dence thatO zce l i k act i vel yatt empt ed t o i nt ervene i n ordel ayan i m pendi ng i m m i gr at i on i nves t i gat i on. W e a g re e w ith th e F if

th C ir c u it th a t th e te rm s “ s h ie ld in g ,” “harbor i ng, ” and “ conce al i ng” under§ 1324 encompas s conduct “t endi ng t o s ubs t ant i al l yfac i l i t at e an a l i en’ s r emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y ” and t o pr eventgovernm entauthor i t i es f r o m d e t e c t i n g th e a l i e n ’ s u n l a w f u l p r e s e n c e . I d
. a t1 0 7 3
. We19 al s o agr ee thats hi el di ng does notr equi r e the us e of a phy s i cal barr i er , art i fi ce, ortr i ck. N onethel es s , w e mustexami ne w hether O zce l i k’ s conductfi t s w i thi n the s t atut oryl anguage as cons trued bythe o ther cou rt s of ap peals
. T he governm entci t es the fol l ow i ng evi dence as pr oof that O zc eli k tend ed to su b stan ti all yfa cil it ate O zc eli k ’s r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es . D ur i ng thei rM ar ch 24 meet i ng, O z c e lik sta ted to T u n c e r, “Y o u a re n o t g o in g to g e t in v o lv e d in anythi ng for3- 5 m onths i n or dert o keep y ours t atus . G o t o y our w or k and come back home i n s i l ence , cook y ourfood, do that onl y . ” A pp. at988. O zce l i k cont i nued, “The m os ti m por t ant thi ng i s fory ou t o notgeti nvol ved i n anythi ng her e, t o notget i nvol ved i n anyact i vi ty . ” A pp. at989. I n a s i m i l arvei n, O zce l i k s ai d t o T uncer , “That ’ s w hyI ’ m t el l i ng y ou t o s t ayaw ay f ro m e v e ryth in g f

o r 4 -5 m o n th s . S ta ya w a yf ro m e v e ryth in g . A r e y ou goi ng t o y ourj ob? G o, then come back home. ” A pp. at 992. O zce l i k al s o comm ent ed that“i ti s a good thi ng that y o u ’v e c h a n g e d y o u r a d d re ss . I m e a n y o u r le g a l ad d re ss is d iffe ren t. Y o u are li v ing w ith a f ri en d h ere . D isap p ea r, d o n ’t tel l any o n e w h at ad d ress y o u ’re stay ing at. ” A p p . at 99 2
. L ater, he sai d, “S t ayaw ay . S t ayaw ayfrom everything fo r 5- 6 m on ths. . . . E s p e c ia lly th e a d d re s s th in g is v e ry im p o rt a n t.” A p p . a t 9 9 4
. O zcel i k st at ed, “[A ]s I s ai d b efore st ayl ow keyfor 5-6 m on ths, beca us e y ou do nothave a nyr i ght s . ” A pp. at996. I n a l at er re c o rd e d tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n , O z c e lik sa id to T u n c e r, “I to ld y ou, don’ tdo anythi ng, I m ean don’ tgo l eftand r i ghta l ot
. ” A pp. at999. T hi s cons t i tut es the t ot al i tyof the evi dence on w hich the g ov ernm ent r el i es. T he governm entar gues thatbeca us e O zce l i k gave Tuncer m anyi ns truct i ons , i ncl udi ng t el l i ng T uncert o hi de, how t o hi de, and t o us e mul t i pl e addr es s es t o avoi d det ect i on bythe author i t i es , O zce l i k pr ovi ded “c ouns el i ng” thatvi ol at es the s t atut e. W e di s agr ee. I ns t ead, w e vi ew O zce l i k’ s comm ent s as gener al advi ce t o, i n eff ect , keep a l ow pr ofi l e and notdo anythi ng i l l egal
. O zce l i k s ugges t ed thatT uncers t ayoutof tr oubl e. T el l i ng an i l l egal al i en t o s t ayoutof tr oubl e does not20 t e n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o f

a c i l i t a t e th e a l i e n r e m a i n i n g i n th e c o u n try; ra th e r, itsim p lysta tes a n o b v io u s p ro p o sitio n th a t an y o n e w o u ld k n o w o r c o u ld e a s ily a s c e rt a in f ro m a lm o s t a n ys o u rc e . M or eover , T uncerhad al r eadychange d hi s addr es s befor e he e v e n sp o k e to O z c e lik . O z c e lik ’s c o m m e n ts a b o u t th a t f a c t, ther efor e, w er e i r r el evantbeca us e Tuncerhad al r eadyt aken the a c tio n o n h is o w n a c c o rd . H o ld in g O z c e lik c rim in a lly r es pons i bl e forpas s i ng al ong gener al i nform at i on t o an i l l egal al i en w oul d eff

ect i vel yw r i t e the w or d “s ubs t ant i al l y ” outof the t es tw e have undert aken t o appl y . W e dec l i ne t o do s o. C o n sid e rin g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to the governm entw e conc l ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d fi nd that O zc eli k ’s co n d u ct t en d ed to su b stan ti all yfa cil it ate T u n ce r’s rem ai ning i n the U nit ed S t at es i l l egall y . W e t herefore r everse O zce l i k’ s convi ct i on under8 U
. S. C
. § 1324 ( C ountT w o of the I ndi ctm ent ) and w i l l r emand forr es ent enci ng. B e c a u se w e re v e rse O z c e lik ’s c o n v ictio n w ith re sp e c t to C ountT w o, the harbor i ng char ge, onl yone off ens e of c onvi ct i on r emai ns . T her efor e, O zce l i k’ s cont ent i on thathi s tw o offe ns es of convi ct i on s houl d have be en “gr ouped” f ors ent enci ng p u rp o se s is m o o t. I V. C oncl us i on Forthe above

- s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent of convi ct i on i n partand r ever s e i n part
. W e w i l l r emand for r es ent enci ng.