FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 22 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 03 -CEH-DNF-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN MANUEL RIVERA-SOTO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 1, 2 01 1)
Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ju anMan ue l Ri ve ra-S ot o app eal s h is co nv ic ti on foril le ga l re en try by an al ie n p rev io us ly con vi ct edof afel on y invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( b) (1 ). Ri ve ra-S ot o urg es th is co urt t o s etasi de hi s co nv ic ti on forth e fo ll owi ng reas on s. Fi rs t, h e arg ue s t ha t h is imm ig rat io n re co rd s wer e im pr op erl y adm it te d u nd er the bu si ne ss reco rd s ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay rul e. Seco nd , he c on te nd s tha t the in tro du ct io n o f hi s i m

m ig rat io n re co rd s i nt o e vi de nc e v io la te d t he Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se of the Six th Am en dm en t. Fi na ll y , he a ss ert s tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto pr ov e two ess en ti al ele m en ts of the off en se —n am el y , th atat t he rel ev an t t im e, he was anali enan d t ha t h e d idno t re cei ve th e Att orne y Gene ral ’s con se ntto reap pl y fo r adm is si on in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. I. Hea rs ay Ex cept io n

“ W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs foranab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Caraba ll o, 5 95 F.3d12 14 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Hears ay is de fin edas “ a st at em en t, o th er tha n o ne m ad e b y th e d ecl aran t wh il e te st ifyin g a t the tri al or he ari ng , off

eredinev id en ce t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m atte r as se rte d.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c). Un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 03 (6 ), bu si ne ss reco rd s ar e n ot ex cl ud edas h ears ay

if t he y are k ep t i n t he co ur se of areg ul arl y co nduc te d bu si ne ss act iv it y , andif i t was th e reg ul ar p ract ic e o f th e b us in es s ac ti vi ty to m ak e th e rec or ds , “ al l as sh own by the tes ti m on y of t he cu st od ia n o r ot he r qu al ifi ed 2witne ss , or b y cert ifi cat io n t ha t co m

pl ie s wi th Ru le 90 2( 11 ), Ru le 90 2( 12 ), ora st atut e p erm it ti ng cert ifi cat io n.” Id. 8 03 (6 ). Und er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 03 (8 ), do cu m en ts are g en eral ly not ex cl ud edas h ears ay

if t he y are re co rd s, re po rts , st at em en ts , or d at a co m pi la ti on s, in an y form , of p ub li c ag en ci es , whi chsetforthth e act iv it ie s o f th e ag en cy or m at te rs ob se rv edpu rs ua ntto a le ga l dut y to rep ort, u nl es s ci rcu m st an ces in di cat e a la ckof t ru st worth in es s. Id . 80 3( 8) (A), (B). Publ ic reco rd s m ay be au th en ti cat ed by sho win g t ha t the y

are “ fro m

th e p ub li c o ffi ce wh ere i te m s o f [tha t] natur e are ke pt .” Id . 90 1( b) (7 ). Ri ve ra-S ot o arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinadm it ti ng hi s i m m ig rat io n reco rd s u nd er the bu si ne ss reco rd s ex cep ti onto th e h ears ay rul e. Thi s co nt en ti on is un av ai li ng be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt al so admit te d t he imm ig rat io n re co rd s un de r th e p ub li c rec or ds ex cep ti on . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n in so do in g. We hav e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t “ ro ut in el y an d m ech an ic al ly kep t” imm ig rat io n re co rd s, s uc h a s d ep orta ti onwarran ts , are ad m is si bl e as publ ic reco rd s. Un it edSta te s v . Agu st in o- Hern an de z, 14 F.3d42 , 43 (11 thCir . 19 94 ); se e al so Caraba ll o, 5 95 F.3dat 1 22 6. Ri ve ra-S ot o h as no t o th erwi se arg ue d t ha t the reco rd s i n t hi s ca se are s o un tru st worth y

th atth e jury sho ul d n otha ve be enall owe d t o c on si de r th em . See 3ge ne ral ly Fed. R. Ev id . 80 3( 8) (pr ov id in g t ha t p ub li c rec or ds m ay be ex cl ud edif

“ ci rcu m st an ces in di cat e [a] lac k o f trus two rth in es s” ). Nor h as he ass ert edth atth e go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro vi de su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o aut he nt ic at e th e rec or ds as th os e o f th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecurity (DHS). See g en eral ly id. 9 01 (b )(7 ) (p ro vi di ng th atpubl ic reco rd s m ay be au th en ti cat edby sho win g tha t the reco rd s are “ fro m th e p ub li c o ffi ce wh ere i te m s o f [tha t] natur e are ke pt ”). Und er the se ci rcu m st an ces , we canno t s ay th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n adm it ti ng th e imm ig rat io n re co rd s i nt o e vi de nc e und er the publ ic reco rd s ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay

rul e. II . Con fro nta tio n Cla us e

“ [W] e rev ie w ‘ de no vo th e que st io n o f whe th er h ears ay st at em en ts are ‘test im on ia l’ forpu rp os es of t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e.’” Carab al lo , 59 5 F .3dat 12 26 (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Lam on s, 5 32 F.3d12 51 , 12 61 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 )). “ [T]he Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e b ars th e ad m is si on of t he tes ti m on ia l st at em en ts of awitne ss who di d n otap pe ar attri al un le ss th e wit ne ss was un av ai labl e an d the de fen da ntha d apri orop po rtu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e h im or he r.” Id . at12 27 (ci ti ng Crawfo rdv. Wash in gt on , 54 1 U.S. 3 6, 5 3– 54 (20 04 )). St at em en ts “ are t es ti m on ia l wh enth e ci rcu m st an ces ob jecti ve ly ind ic at e th at. . . th e p rimary

pu rp os e o f th e [s ta te m en t] is to est ab li shor p ro ve pa stev en ts 4po te nt ia ll y

rel ev an t t o l at er cr im in al pro se cu ti on .” Id . (qu ot in g Dav is v. W as hi ng to n, 5 47 U.S. 81 3, 8 22 (20 06 )). InUni te d S ta te s v . Can te ll an o, 4 30 F.3d11 42 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), we he ldth at a d ep orta ti on warran t i s n on -te st im on ia l an d n otsubjec t t o c on fro nt at io n b ecau se itis “ reco rd edrou ti ne ly andno t i n p rep arat io n fo r a cri m in al tri al .” Id . at 1 14 5. W e n ot edth ata de po rta ti on warran t s im pl y “ reco rd s fa ct s ab ou t wh ere, wh en , and ho w a de po rte e le ft t he co un try.” Id. InCaraba ll o, we s im il arl y he ldth atanali en fil e’s I-2 13 form , whi ch“ is pri m ari ly use d . . . forth e p ur po se of t rack in g t he en try of ali en s i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s,” i s n on -te st im on ia l. 5 95 F.3dat 1 22 9. We ob se rv edth atanI-2 13 form co nt ai ns “ ro ut in e b io gr ap hi cal in fo rm at io n t ha t i s requi redof e ve ry

for ei gnen tra ntforth e p ro pe r adm in is tra ti on of o urimm ig rat io n la ws an d p ol ic ie s.” Id . As Ri ve ra-S ot o a ckno wled ge s, the se pre ced en ts for ecl os e h is arg um en t tha t in th is cas e, th e ad mis si on of t he immig rat io n re co rd s i nt o e vi de nc e v io la te d t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. A dep orta ti on warran t i s n on -te st im on ia l. Can te ll an o, 4 30 F.3 d a t 1 14 5. An d wh il e we h av e n otpre vi ou sl y co ns id eredwhet he r anI-8 67 fo rm is tes ti m on ia l, o urreas on in g i n C arab al lo bri ng s u s t o t he co nc lu si on th atitis al so no n- te st im on ia l. Lik e anI-2 13 form , th e I-8 67 form th atreco rd s the swo rn st at em en t o f anali enpri orto rem ov al co nt ai ns “ ro ut in e b io gr ap hi cal in fo rm at io n” 5ob ta in edpri m ari ly “ fo r th e p ro pe r adm in is tra ti on of o urimm ig rat io n l aws an d

po li ci es .” Carabe ll o, 5 95 F.3dat 1 22 9. Th e immig rat io n re co rd s i n t hi s ca se are th us no n- te st im on ia l an d d o n otim pl ic at e th e Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e. 1 II I. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

“ W e rev ie w whet he r th e rec or d c on ta in s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt a jury’ s v erd ic t d e n ov o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Byrd , 40 3 F .3d12 78 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Inso do in g, we v ie w th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e go ve rn m en t, wi th all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces dra wn i n t he go ve rn m en t’s fa vo r.” Id . “ A con vi ct io n m us t b e uph el d unl es s the jury co ul d n ot ha ve fou ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty und er an y reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Cha st ai n, 1 98 F.3d13 38 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). To o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on forth e o ffen se of i ll eg al reen try by anali en , th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve th atth e d efen da nt(1) was a n a li en ; (2 ) ha d p rev io us ly be ende po rte d fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s; (3) was t he reaf te r fo un d t o b e inth e Uni te d St at es vo lu nt ari ly; an d (4 ) ha d n otrece iv edth e ex pr es s co ns en t o f th e Att orne y Gen eral to reap pl y

forread mis si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s. See 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a);

We also note that the Immigration and Customs Enforc ement ag ent who conduc ted the 1 interview to e licit the answer s on the I -867 for m was a w itness at trial and wa s thus available f or cross-e x amination. Thus, even if the sworn state ment wer e testimonial, there w as no Confrontation Clause violation. 6Uni te d S ta te s v . Henry , 11 1 F .3d11 1, 1 13 –1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . Riv era- So to 2 arg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro vi de su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e jury to fi nd th e fi rs t an d fo urth ele m en ts of t he off en se . W e are no t p ers ua de d b y th is arg um en t. Fi rs t, Ri ve ra-S ot o’s 2 00 4 I- 86 7 fo rm st at es th athe is a ci ti zen of M ex ic o. The jury co ul d h av e rea so nabl y in ferr edfro m

th atst at em en t, an d t he ex ecu ti on of th e d ep orta ti on warran t i n 2 00 4, tha t Ri ve ra-S ot o was anali enat t he rel ev an t t im e. Ri ve ra-S ot o re li es on cas es su chas Un it edSta te s v . Hern an de z, 10 5 F .3d13 30 (9 th Cir . 19 97 ), to arg ue th ata de fen da nt ’s adm is si on th athe is anali enis in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th e el em en t o f al ie na ge . This effo rt i s m is di rect ed . Cas es su chas He rn an de z co nc ernth e in su ffi ci en cy of a n a dm is si on m ad e atth e ti m e o f, oraft er, the arre stlea di ng up to th e co nv ic ti on th atis be in g c ha ll en ge d. Se e, e.g ., id . at 1 33 1– 33 . In thi s ca se , th e g ov ern m en t d idno t i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f su cha co nf es si on init s ef

fo rt t o p ro ve th e el em en t o f al ie na ge . Seco nd , th e jury cou ldals o h av e rea so nabl y fou ndth atRiv era- So to di d n ot ob ta in th e co ns en t o f th e Att orne y Gene ral to reap pl y

foradm is si on . An Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t (I CE) ag en t t es ti fie d t ha t h e was un ab le to
Rivera- Soto was convicted f or violating8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). A conviction under

that 2 statutory provision require s the g overnme nt to establish the elements for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) . See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 7fin d a ny ph y si cal or e le ctro ni c rec or d i nd ic at in g t ha t Ri ve ra-S ot o h adap pl ie d fo r

read m is si on in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e jury’ s d eci si on to cred itth attes ti m on y is no t o ur s t o que st io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Parra do , 91 1 F .2d15 67 , 15 71 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (“ Cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns are the ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury.”). Ri ve ra-S ot o c on te nd s t ha t i n l ie u o f orinad di ti on to th e ICE ag en t’s te st im on y , th e g ov ern m en t was requi redto off er a Ce rti fic at e o f Non ex is te nc e o f Rec or ds . Riv era- So to cit es no cas es th atsupp ort thi s s pe ci fic pro po si ti on . In an y

3 ev en t, i t co nf

li ct s wi th “ th e fam il ia r, st an da rdrul e th atth e p ro se cu ti on is en ti tl ed to pro ve it s ca se by evi de nc e o f it s o wn ch oi ce.” Ol d C hi ef v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 19 U.S. 17 2, 1 86 (19 97 ). In l ig htof t he ICE ag en t’s t es ti m on y he re, the jury co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly foundth atRiv era- So to di d n otob ta in th e requi si te pe rm is si on to reen te r th e Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng hi s 2 00 4 re m ov al . Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, we affi rm Riv era- So to ’s con vi ct io n. 4 AFFIRMED.

A Certificate of None x istence of Records c ertifies that a DHS employee se arc hed the 3 immigration records databa ses and f ound no rec ord indicatingthe alien r ece ived per mission t o ree nter the United States. See United States v. Villare al-Mar tinez, 382 F. App’x. 379, 380 (5th Cir. 2010). Rivera- Soto’s request for oral a rgument is denied. 4 8