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 and 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. I SI DRO H ERNA ND EZ - RAM I RE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50275 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 03 11 3-B E N -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

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. I SI DRO H ERNA ND EZ - RAM I RE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50027 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 03 11 3-B E N -1

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 R oge rT . B e ni t e z , 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 r6, 2011

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

o rn ia 

# FI LED DE C 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , S IL V E R M A N , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

Is i dro H ernand ez -R am i re z app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on for a tt em pt ed re entryaf t er depo rt at i on i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . H e c l ai m s thatthe di stri ctcourt prec l ud ed hi m fr om pres ent i ng a def ense thathe had a go od fa i th b el i ef that U n if o rm C o m m e r c ia l C o d e d o c u m e n ts f ile d w ith th e C a lif

o rn iaS e c r e ta ry o f

S ta te g a v e h i m al e g a l r i g h tt o e n t e rth e U n i t e d St a t e s . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpr e c l ude the de f e ns e f r om pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e or a r g u in g ag o o d f

a ith d e f e n s e in c lo s in g . R a th e r , it a d v is e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l th a t it w ou l d g i ve a j ury i nstruct i on expl ai ni ng thatthe U C C go verns c om m er ci al tr a ns a c t i ons , noti m m i gr a t i on l a w , i f de f e ns e c ouns e l a r gue d the appl i c abi l i ty of the U C C i n cl osi ng ar gu m ent . S uch an i nstruct i on w ou l d h ave been a c orre ct s t a t e m e ntof

the l a w . D e f

e ns e c ouns e l the n c hos e nott o m a ke the a r gum e nt . O ur de c i s i on i n U

ni ted Stat es v. Sm i th-B al t i her , 424 F . 3d 913 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , doe s not c ontr ol thi s c a s e , be c aus e i n Sm i th-B al t i her , the de f e nda nti ntr oduc e d e vi de nc e of h is m o th e r 's U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s h ip . I d. a t922 & n. 8. I n c ontr a s t , he r e , a s the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound, M r . H e rna nde z pr of f e r e d “ no e vi de nc e ” tha the ha d agood f a ith b e lie f

th a t th e d o c u m e n ts h e p r e s e n te d h a d “a n y f o r c e o re f

f e c t o n h is ab ility to e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s .” B ec ause the j ury i nstruct i on s gi ven adequ at el y c ov er ed spec i fi c i nt entas req u i red b y U

n i ted S ta tes v. G ra ci da s-Ul i b a rry , 23 1 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 96 (9th C i r.Appe lle e ' s mo tio n topermit a rgument b y

te leph on eon

De c ember 6 , 2 01 1, is 1 GRANTED. 2000) ( e n ba nc ) , H e rna nde z - R a m i r e z w a s note nt i t l e d t o a ny a ddi t i ona l “ good f a ith ” ju ry in s tru c tio n . U ni ted Stat es v. Sh i

psey , 3 6 3 F .3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . AFFI RM ED .

1