FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1491 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 20 47 3- CR-J LK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us GELCE ALE XANDRE DASILVA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 27, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T he gov er

nm en t a ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a spon te dis m iss al w ith pr ej udi ce of

the ind ic tm en t c harg ing D ef en dant- Appe lle e G el ce A le xandr e D as ilv a wit h a tt em

pt edreen try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the ind ic tm en t f

ai le d to c harg e ac ts s uf

fi ci en t t o es ta bli sh v iol at ionof

se ct ion132 6( a) . W e cannot a gr ee and v ac at e the dis m iss al . Se ct ion132 6( a) m ak es it

unl aw fu l f

or an a lie n who h as be enr em ove d to

“ en te r[ ] , a tte m

pt[ ] to en te r, or

[ be ] a t any

ti m e fo und in, the Unit ed S tate s” unl es s, pr ior to re em bark at ionout sid e the U nit ed S tate s, the a lie n r ec ei ve s th e expr es s co ns en t o f th e Att orne y

Gene ral to th e al ie n’s re ap pl y in g fo r ad m is si on . To co nvi ct D as ilv a of

a tte m pte d r ee ntr

y in vio latio n of

se ct ion132 6( a) , the governm ent had to prov e that (1) D asilva was an alien at the tim e of the alleged of fe nse ; ( 2) he ha d be enpr ev iou sly r em ove d; ( 3) he ha d no t r ec ei ve d th e expr es s co nse nt o f the A tto rn ey

G en er al to ap ply

f or r ea dm iss ion ; and ( 4) he a tte m pte d to en te r the U nit ed

S tate s. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Mart e, 356 F . 3d 1 336, 134 5 ( 11 th Ci r. 20 04 ). D as ilv a (a lon g w ithove r a doz enoth er a lie ns) w as appr eh en de d in int er na tio na l w at er s a

br oa d adis ab le d U nit ed

S tate s- fl ag ge d ve sse l onthe hig h se as appr oxi m at el y

som e 20 n au tic al m ile s of f the F lor ida

c oa st and o uts ide the j ur isd ic tio n of

any part ic ular St at e. D as ilv a w as c harg ed in a sin gle -c ount3

ind ic tm en t w ithvio latio n of 8 U . S. C. § 13 26( a) ; he c hose to ple ad gui lty to the charge. T o establish the fac tual basis for the plea, the governm ent proffer ed that D as ilv a w as ac iti ze n of

Br az il, ha d be en

r em ove d pr ev iou sly , and w as f ound on a ve sse l bo und fo r the U nit ed S tate s. Whe n in te rv ie w ed , D as ilv a a dm itt ed that he wa s attem

pting to reenter the United States and had no t rece ived the Attorney Ge neral’ s consent to apply for r eentry . T he vessel had not entered United States te rr ito ri al w at er s be ca

use it de ve lop ed

af ue l l eak th at

r en de re d it

de ad in the wate r. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef use d to a cc ep t D as ilv a’ s gu ilty ple a co nc lud ing that the pr of fe r show ed

the c om m iss ionof

no p ro se cu ta

ble of fe nse . A cc or din g to the dis tr ic t c ourt, be ca

use the ve sse l br oke down ou tsi de the te rr ito ri al j ur isd ic tio n of thi s c ountry , D as ilv a w as a cc ount ab le onl y f or de sir ing to liv e he re and tha t i s no cr im e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ine d to a cc ep t D as ilv a’ s gu ilty ple a; the ind ic tm en t wa s dism issed with prej udice. D ism iss al of

an in dic tm en t i s su

bj ec t t o de nov o r ev ie w . U nit ed S tate s v. Sh ar pe , 438 F . 3d 1 1257 , 125 9 ( 11 Ci r. 200 6) . T he suf fi ci en cy of an in dic tm en t i s th assessed by

taking th e allegations contained in the indictm ent to be true and then de te rm ini ng whe the r a cr im ina l of fe nse ha s be enstate d. S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Pl um m er , 221 F . 3d 1 298, 130 2 ( 11 Ci r. 200 0) . T he e le m en ts o f the se ct ion th4

1326 (a ) of

fe nse – D as ilv a’ s a lie n st at us, pr ev iou s r em ova l, abse nc e of c onse nt, an d a tte m pt t o r ee nte r – e ac h w er e al le ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. D as ilv a soug ht t o ple ad gui lty to the of fe nse . T he dis tr ic t c ourt no ne the le ss c onc lud ed that the atte m pt s tate d inthe ind ic tm en t c oul d no t su ppor t c ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n be ca use no ac ts w ith in Unit ed

S tate s te rr ito ri al w at er s w er e al le ge d. W e re j ec t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s po sit ionthat se ct ion132 6( a) ’ s atte m pt provisi on can have no extraterritorial a pplication . In Plum

m er, we determ ined that the c ri m e of

a tte m pte d sm uggl ing c oul d be pr ed ic at ed on a ct s oc curr ing exclusivelyoutsid e U nited States territory ; onlythe underly ing offense – sm uggl ing – r eq

uir es , a s am atte r of

law , c om ple tio n w ith in t

he U nit ed S tate s. 221 F. 3d at 130 3-04. A s Plum m er r ecognized, Congress has the authority to enforce its law s be y ond the te rr ito ri al boundari es of the U nit ed

S tate s, id. a t 13 04; and whether Congress intend ed extrater ritorial application is a m atter of statutory construction . Id. Congress need not p rovide expressly for extraterritorial application; such application m ay be inferr ed from

the nature of the off

ense. Id. at 1304 -0 5. Fo r re as ons para lle lin g th ose e xpr es se d inP lum m er f or inf er ri ng ex tra te rri to ria l ap pl ic at io n o f se ct io n 5 45 's a tt em pt edsm ug gl in g p ro vi si on , we infer Congressional intent to apply extrater ritorially section 132 6(a)’ s attem

pted5

r e e n try p r o v i s i o n . A l th o u g h th e c o mp l e t e dc r i me o f r e e n try r e qu i r e s s o me phy sic al e ntr

y int o th e U nit ed

S tate s, a tte m

pte d r ee ntr

y is not log ic al ly de pe nde nt on a ct s take n w ith in Unit ed S tate s’ s te rr ito ri al li m its . S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Bowm an, 43 S. Ct. 39, 41 (1922); Plumm er, 221 F.3d at 1305. From the very n a tu r e o f th e c r i me, th e s ub s t an t i a l s t e p t o w ar dc o mp l e t i o no f ani l l e g a l r e e n try – the lynchpin of an “ attem pt” – is likelyto occur outsid e U nited States territorial lim its. Pr oxim ity

to the United States m ay fac tor – and, in som e case s m ay even be an im portant c onsi de ratio n – i n de te rm ini ng whe the r co nduc t c onst itute s th e requisite subs tantial step. But proxim ity is but on e consideration; whether conduct

“ advanc ed

e noug h to c onst itute an a tte m pt i s an is sue f

or f ac tua l de ve lop m en t and tr ia l, not one f or thi s C ourt t o r es olv e as am atte r of lawba se d so le ly

on the ind ic tm en t. ” P lum

m er , 221 F . 3d at 13 03. The indictm ent of Da silva stated adequately the offense of attem

pted illegal reentry ; dism issal of the indictm ent was in er ror. VACATED AND REMANDED.