NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 4316

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M A R T I N PE Y N A D O , a/k/ a Lesl i e G or don

M AR T I N P E YNADO , 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 09- cr - 00012- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 24, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J une 24, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . M art i n Peynado appe al s hi s convi ct i on form aki ng fal s e s t at ement s t o the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C § 1001( a) ( 2) , and2

hi nder i ng r emoval , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1253( a) ( 1) ( B ) & ( C ) . Peynado’ s couns el fi l ed a mot i on i n acc or dance w i th A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), se e k in g to w ith d ra w f

ro m re p re se n tin g P e yn a d o . W e f in d th a t co u n se l h a s f

a iled to sa tisf

yh is o b li g ati o n s u n d er A nd ers . H ow ever , bas ed on ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, and ourr evi ew of the ar gum ent s r ai s ed byPeynado i n a br i ef f i l ed pro se , w e agr ee thatany appea l w oul d be pat ent l yfr i vol ous and w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. Peynado i l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es fr om J amai ca f orthe fi r s tt i m e on M a y2 0 , 1 9 9 5 . Im m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls d e tain e d h im u p o n e n tryb e c a u se h e a ttem p ted to us e a f r audul entpas s por t . A tthatt i m e, Peynado made a s w orn s t at ementatt es t i ng thathe w as born i n B og W al k, Sai ntC ather i ne, J amai ca. Peynado w as excl uded fr om the U ni t ed St at es and w as s hor t l yther eaf t erdeport ed t o J amai ca. Peynado r eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es ats om e l at er , unknow n t i m e and, on February21, 2007, w as arr es t ed and i ndi ct ed i n the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a for i l l egal r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng deport at i on. Peynado pl eade d gui l tyand dur i ng a pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on he aga i n s t at ed thathe w as born i n B og W al k, Sai nt3

C at heri ne, Jam ai ca. T hroug ho ut tho se proceedings, P eynad o m ai ntai ned that he w as a Jam ai can cit i zen. Peynad o w as sent enced t o ti m e served of ap proxim at el yfi ve m on ths. Peynado once agai n aff i r m ed thathe w as a ci t i zen of J amai ca on N ovember1, 2007, w hi l e he w as i n pr i s on. Seeki ng pr ot ect i on fr om r emoval t o J amai ca, Peynado m ade a s w orn s t at ementt o t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyoffi ci al s s t at i ng thathe fe are d h e w o u ld b e m u rde red if h e re turn ed to Ja m aica . H e a lso sw o re tha t he w as b o rn in S a in t C a th e ri n e , J a m a ic a a n d th a t h e w a s a c itiz e n o f J a m a ic a a n d n o o th e r c o u n tr y . B as ed on thes e cl ai m s , on A ugus t13, 2008, Peynado fi l ed an appl i cat i on w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a t o s t ayr emoval . O n thi s appl i cat i on, Peynado once agai n l i s t ed hi s countryof ci t i zens hi p as J amai ca. O n O ct ober1, 2008, thi s C our tdeni ed hi s appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s r eques tfora s t ayof r emoval . O n a B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( “I C E ”) r eques tform r el at i ng t o hi s appea l , Peynado aga i n i ndi cat ed hi s countryof ci t i zens hi p as J amai ca. Peynado’ s r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es w as s chedul ed for N ovember19, 2008. Peynado fi r s tcl ai m ed t o be a c i t i zen of H ai t i on a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus thathe fi l ed on N ovember16, 2008, i n the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T hi s pet i t i on fai l ed t o i ndi cat e thatPeynado w as s chedul ed t o be deport ed to J a m a ic a , n o r d id it r e v e a l h is p re v io u s a s s e rt io n s th a t h e w a s a c itiz e n o f J a m a ic a . R ather , the pet i t i on r eques t ed r el eas e fr om cus t odybeca us e H ai t i w as r efus i ng t o acc ept4

the r epatr i at i on of deport ees . Peynado al s o fi l l ed outanotherI C E r eques tform on N ovember17, 2008, butthi s t i m e he l i s t ed hi s countryof ci t i zens hi p as H ai t i . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Peynado’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on, butdi r ect ed I C E t o tr eatthe pet i t i on as a r eques tforr el eas e. T hr oughouthi s var i ous pr ocee di ngs , Peynado fa i l ed t o pr oduce doc um ent at i on of hi s ci t i zens hi p of ei therJ amai ca orH ai t i . I n an att empt t o ver i fyhi s nat i onal i ty , the go vernm ent di d n ot cont actanyof P eynad o’s fam i l y , bu tdid contactJam ai can au tho ri t i es, the U ni t ed St at es embass yi n J amai ca, and I C E , butcoul d notfi nd document at i on r el at ed to P e yn a d o ’s c iti z e n sh ip . F u rth e r, d e sp ite re p e a ted w a rn in g s, P e yn a d o f a iled to o b tain tr a v e l d o c u m e n t s f

r o m J a m a i c a o rH a i t i a n d d i d n o ta s s i s ti n h i s r e m o v a l i n a n y w a y. O n Ja n u a ry1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , an in d ictm e n t ch a rg e d P e yn a d o w ith m a k in g f a lse sta tem e n ts t o I C E , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C § 1001( a) ( 2) , and hi nder i ng r emoval , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 3 (a )(1 )(B ) & (C ). O n Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a ju ryf o u n d P e yn a d o g u iltyo f b o th count s and on O ct ober28, 2009, he w as s ent ence d t o 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. Peynado fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . C our t - appoi nt ed couns el fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef a nd a mot i on t o w i thdr aw . Peynado fi l ed a pro se br i ef. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C § 1 29 1. W e con si der cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef i n l i ghtof5

“(1) w hethercou nsel adeq uatel yfulfi l l ed [T hir d C i rcui tL ocal A pp el l at e R ule 109.2’ s] r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Foran A nd ers br i ef t o be cons i der ed ade quat e, w e r equi r e couns el “( 1) t o s at i s fythe courtthathe o r sh e h a d th o ro u g h lysc o u re d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le is su e s; a n d (2 ) to e x p lain w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In tho se cases that fr i vo l ou sness i s pat ent, ho w ever, w e w i l l no trej ectcou nsel ’s A nd ers b ri e f a s in a d e q u a te . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 5 7 5 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

III . A l though t he A nd ers br i ef f i l ed byPeynado’ s couns el i s i nadequa t e, w e w i l l gr ant couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and af fi r m Peynado’ s convi ct i on due t o the pat ent f riv o lo u sn e ss o f

th e iss u e s b o th h is c o u n se l an d h e p re se n t. A. P eynad o’s coun sel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s i nadequa t e bec aus e i tdoes notexpl ai n w hy th e is s u e o n a p p e a l – th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to c o n v ic t P e yn a d o – is f ri v o lo u s . W e fi nd A nd ers br i efs i n w hi ch “c ouns el ar gue[s ] the purpor t edl yfr i vol ous i s s ues a g g re s s iv e ly w ith o u t e x p la in in g th e f a u lts in th e a rg u m e n ts ” to b e in a d e q u a te . M a rv in , 211 F. 3d at781. C ouns el ’ s br i ef a r gues that“[t ] hi s C our ts houl d fi nd thati ns uffi ci ent ev iden ce w as a d d u ce d at tri al t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s ve rdicts of g u il t. ” (A n d ers B r. at 13 . ) A l though couns el out l i nes the i s s ue forappea l , he pr ovi des no expl anat i on att o w hyt he6

i s s ue i s fr i vol ous . I n fac t , he ar gues i n favorof the val i di tyof the veryi s s ue thathe w i shes this C ou rtt o d i sm i ss. B. W e a ff irm P ey n ad o ’s co n v ict ion b ec au se a fter an ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd w e fi nd thatthe i s s ues on appea l ar e pat ent l yfr i vol ous . Peynado ar gues i n hi s br i ef that th e re is in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to c o n v ic t h im o f m a k in g f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts , u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C § 1 0 0 1 (a)(2), an d h ind ering rem o v al, u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 3 (a)(1)(B ) & (C ). P ey n ad o ’s a rg u m e n ts th a t th is C o u rt lac k s ju risd ictio n o v e r h im a re u n in tellig ib le a n d c o m p lete ly unfounded; w e w i l l ther efor e di s m i s s them w i thoutfur thercons i der at i on. A ft eran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e al s o bel i eve thatther e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence thatPeynado made fal s e s t at ement s t o I C E . U nder18 U . S. C § 1001( a) ( 2) , t he governm entm us tpr ove thatthe def endantw i l l ful l ym ade a fal s e s t at ementthatw as m a te ri a l to th e o p e ra tio n s o f a n a g e n c ya n d w a s w ith in th e ju ri s d ic tio n o f th a t a g e n c y . P e yn a d o ’s p e tit io n f

o r h a b e a s c o rp u s itse lf

p ro v e s th a t h e m a d e a sta tem e n t to IC E w ith th e in ten t o f

sto p p in g h is re m o v a l, sa tisf y in g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f a sta tem e n t, m a ter iality and age ncyj ur i s di ct i on. P e yn a d o ’s r e c o rd w ith IC E sh o w s th a t h is s tate m e n t th a t h e is a H a iti a n c iti z e n is fal s e. T hr oughouthi s deal i ngs w i th both I C E and the U ni t ed St at es C our t s betw een M ay20, 1995, and N ovember16, 2008, Peynado r epr es ent ed hi m s el f as a J amai can ci t i zen. I n t hatt i m e per i od, he pr ovi ded s ever al s w orn s t at ement s thathe w as a ci t i zen of7

Ja m a ica , inc lu d in g a sta tem e n t o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7 , in w h ich h e sw o re th a t h e w a s n o t a ci t i zen of

anycountr yexce ptJ amai ca. Peynado al s o fi l ed numer ous r eques tform s and pet i t i ons , eac h t i m e conf i r m i ng hi s J amai can c i t i zens hi p. Fur therm or e, w hen Peynado w as deport ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n 1995, he w as deport ed t o J amai ca, and he di d not dis pu t e his ci t i zenship atthat t i m e. T here are no do cum ents or r ecords that Peynad o is a c iti z e n o f

H a iti . O n lyP e yn a d o ’s o w n tes tim o n y , w h ich is c o n f u sin g a t b e st, link s h im to H a iti . T h e tim in g o f

P e yn a d o ’s c laim o f

H a iti a n c iti z e n sh ip sh o w s th e f a lsityo f h is s t at ement s . Peynado cl ai m ed H ai t i an ci t i zens hi p onl yaft erhe r ead a n art i cl e ( w hi ch he s entt o an I C E agent ) thatr eport ed thatthe U ni t ed St at es w oul d notdeportH ai t i ans beca us e of i nt ol er abl e l i vi ng condi t i ons caus ed bys ever al hurr i cane s . E ven af t err eadi ng thi s art i cl e, Peynado di d notr enounce hi s l ongt i m e cl ai m s of J amai can c i t i zens hi p unt i l he knew thathi s appea l of the di s m i s s al of hi s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus had fa i l ed. T he e x ten siv e re c o rd o f

Ja m a ica n c iti z e n sh ip , co m b in e d w ith th e c o n v e n ien t ti m in g o f h is c laim o f H a iti a n c iti z e n sh ip , su g g e sts th a t P e yn a d o ’s c u rre n t cla im is a d e sp e ra te p lo yto a v o id re m o v a l. T h e tim in g o f th e p e tit io n itse lf

, w h ich c o m e s a f

ter P e yn a d o e x h a u ste d a ll otheropt i ons foravoi di ng r emoval , s ugges t s thatPeynado knew hi s cl ai m s of H ai t i an c i t i z e n s h i p w e r e f

a l s e a n d m a d e th e m o n l y o u to f n e c e s s i ty. W e al s o fi nd thatPeynado’ s fal s e s t at ement s hi nder ed hi s r emoval beca us e he r emai ns i n t hi s countr yaft erthe dat e s etforhi s r emoval . A n al i en i s gui l tyof hi nder i ng8

re m o v a l w h e n th a t alie n “ c o n n iv e s o r c o n sp ire s, o r ta k e s a n yo th e r a c tio n , d e sig n e d to pr eventorhamperorw i th t he purpos e of pr event i ng orhamper i ng the al i en’ s departur e. ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 3 (a )(1 )(C ). P e yn a d o ’s c lea r p u rp o se in f ili n g a p e tit io n w a s to re m a in in th e c o u n try . T h e f

a c t th a t h e m a d e f

a lse sta tem e n ts to d o so b rin g s h is a c tio n s w ith in 8 U . S. C . § 1253( a) ( 1) ( C ) . Peynado conni ved t o r emai n i n the countryaft erhi s s chedul ed depor t at i on dat e of N ovember18, 2008; ther efor e, w e fi nd thatthe evi dence w as su ff ici en t t o fin d h im g u il tyo f h ind ering rem o v al un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 3 (a)(1)(C ). W e f u rth e r f in d th a t th e re w a s s u f

f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t P e yn a d o d id n o t aid h is r emoval as r equi r ed byfede r al s t atut e. T o pr ove thatan al i en hi nder ed r emoval under 8 U . S. C . § 1253( a) ( 1) ( B ) , the governm entneeds t o s how thatthe al i en w i l l ful l yfai l ed or ref u sed to m ak e a ti m ely , g o o d fa ith ef fo rtto su p p lytr av el or o ther d o cu m en ts ne ce ssary t o thatal i en’ s departur e. 8 U . S. C . § 1253( a) ( 1) ( B ) . Peynado di d notpr ovi de the governm entw i th anydocument s fr om anycountrythatw oul d ai d hi s tr avel . H e tw i ce cl ai m ed t o have l os ta bi r th cert i fi cat e, al though one cl ai m pert ai ned t o a J amai can cert i fi cat e and the othert o a ce r t i fi cat e i s s ued byH ai t i . I C E cannoteven f i nd d o c u m e n t a t i o n v e r i f

yi n g h i s i d e n t i ty. I V. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l grantcou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on and af fi r m t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on.