This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and ma

y not be cited to or by

the * courts of this circuit ex cept a s may be provide d by

Ninth Circuit Rul e 36-3. The pa nel unanimously

finds this case suitable f

or dec ision withoutoral a rgument. ** Fe d. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) . The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior D istrict Judg e for the District of Ala ska, *** sitti ngby designation. NOT FOR P UBLICATION

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H EN IN T HC IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Plaintiff - Appellee , vs . E GD ARE R

NE S T O S AN C HE ZESTRADA, De fend ant - Ap pe lla nt. No. 09-50320 D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03693- J L S-1 MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Souther

n District of California J an i s L . S amm art i n o , Di s tri ctJu d ge, P re s i d i n g

Submitted August 6, 2010 ** Pa sa de na , Calif

or nia Be fore : KOZ I

NSKI , Chief Judg e, and WARDLAW, Ci rcuit Judge, a nd SI NGLETON, Senior District Judg e. *** Edg a rSa nc he z- Estr a da( “S a n c h e z ” ) , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f M e x ic o , a p p e a ls h is ju r y c o n v ic tio n f

o ra tte m p te d e n tr y a f

te rd e p o r ta tio n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 

# FI LED SEP 03 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSUnited States v. Margue t-Pillado , 5 6 0 F. 3 d 1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 1 (9 thC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United 1 Sta te s v . Ch u Ko ng

Y in , 935 F.2d 990, 994 ( 9th Cir. 1991)). 2 1 3 2 6 . S a nc he z r a i s e s thr e e i s s ue s : 1) the di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y e xc l ude d the c o n te n t o f

s ta te m e n ts S a n c h e z m a d e a t th e tim e o f h is d e te n tio n a s in a d m is s ib le he a r s a y ; 2) the di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y a dm i t t e d e vi de nc e of m ul t i pl e pr i or i ns t a nc e s of

r e m ova l ; a nd 3) the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n de ny i ng S a nc he z ’ s m ot i on f o ra c q u itta l b e c a u s e th e g o v e r n m e n t d id n o t e s ta b lis h s p e c if ic in te n t. S an ch ez’ s st at em en t s t o A g en tR o si l l o w ere n o th earsay. S an ch ez’ s d efen se w a s tha the di d note nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s w i th the s pe c i f i c i nt e ntt o be f

r e e f r om of f i c i a l r e s tr a i nt . H e s oughtt o pr ove thi s by s how i ng tha the i ni t i a t e d the i nt e r a c t i on w i th A ge ntR os i l l o. A s t a t e m e nttha ts how s a de c l a r a nt ’ s s t a t e of m i nd i s a l s o e xe m pt e d f r om the hear sa y rul e. In t hi s c as e, S anchez s ou gh tt o sho w thathe w as se eki ng ou toffi ci al re stra i ntby ca l l i ng A gentR osi l l o o ver t o h i m and st art i ng a di sc ussi on . W hat S a nc he z s a i d t o A ge ntR os i l l o w a s s e c onda r y t o the f a c tthe c onve r s a t i on t ook pl a c e . S uc h a us e doe s notc ons t i tut e he a r s a y . H ow e ve r , the e xc l us i on of S a n c h e z ’s s ta te m e n ts to A g e n t R o s illo w a s h a r m le s s b e c a u s e S a n c h e z w a s a b le to s how tha the c a l l e d A ge ntR os i l l o ove rt o hi m a nd be ga n a c onve r s a t i on. 1 T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y hel d t hatS anchez’ s s t at em entthathe w asFe deral Rule of Evidence803(3) provides that the hea rsay rule doe s not ex clude “ [a] 2 state me nt o f t

hede c lara

nt' s then exis ting stateof mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition” (e mphasis added) . C.f. United States v. Sanchez- Lima , 161 F.3d 545, 547 ( 9th Cir. 1998). 3 Se eUn ited S

tates v . H e rn an de z-He rrera , 273 F.3d 1213, 1217- 18 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 United States v. Leos-M aldonado , 302 F.3d 1061, 1065 ( 9th Cir. 2002) (evidenc e that 5 defendant had be en depor ted pre viously

rele vant to prove spe cific intent unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1326). 3 “ s pooke d” f

r om m e tha m phe t a m i ne s w a s nota dm i s s i bl e unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 803( 3) . S a nc he z ’ s s t a t e m e ntr e f e r r e d t o hi s s t a t e of

m i nd a tthe t i m e he 2 us e d the m e tha m phe t a m i ne , nothi s s t a t e of m i nd a tthe t i m e he m a de the s t a t e m e nt to A g e n t B a r r o n . N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e c lin in g to a d m it S a n c h e z ’s s ta te m e n ts to A g e n t B a r r o n u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 7 . T he s t a t e m e nt s di d notha ve s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i a of

trus tw or thi ne s s be c a us e the st at em en t s w ere n o tm ad e u n d er o at h o r su b j ectt o th e p en al ty o f p erj u ry. 3 F u r th e r m o r e , th e g o v e r n m e n t’s c o u n s e l d id n o t h a v e a m e a n in g f u l o p p o r tu n ity to d e v e lo p th is te s tim o n y . T he go vernm entsoug htt o i nt rodu ce S anchez’ s f i ve pri or re m ov al s a s e vi de nc e of

the f a c tS a nc he z ha d be e n pr e vi ous l y r e m ove d, a s e vi de nc e of S anchez’ s a l i enage, as evi dence thatS anchez a ct ed w i th t he kn ow l edge he w as 4 c r o s s in g th e b o r d e rille g a lly , a n d a s e v id e n c e th a t S a n c h e z h a d th e s p e c if ic in te n t to a v o id o f f ic ia l r e s tr a in t. S a n c h e z c la im s th is in tr o d u c tio n e s s e n tia lly a m o u n te d to

5Se eUn ited S tates v . I nzunza , 580 F.3d 894, 899 ( 9th Cir. 2009) (discussingsufficie ncy 6 of the e videncestandard of revie w). United States v. Lombera- Valdovinos , 429 F.3d 927, 928- 29 (9th Cir. 2005) (attempted 7 illegal entry

require s proof of spe cific intent to re enter fre e from official restraint). 4 im p ro p er ch ar ac ter e v id en ce , esp ec iall y in li g h t o f S an ch ez ’s co u n se l’ s

“ conces si on ” thatS anchez w as no ta U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n and thathe had b ee n previ ou sl y deport ed. B ec ause S anchez’ s c ou nsel never s t i pu l at ed or even offer ed t o s t i pul a t e t o pr e vi ous r e m ova l ora l i e na ge , hi s c onc e s s i on w a s notbi ndi ng on the gove r nm e nt . T he pr i orr e m ova l s w e r e of f e r e d t o pr ove m ul t i pl e e l e m e nt s of the c r im e . T h is e v id e n c e is e s p e c ia lly p r o b a tiv e b e c a u s e o n e o f th e p r io rr e m o v a ls t oo k p l ac e a tthe O t ay M es a P ortof E nt ry , the sa m e portof ent ry w here S anchez w a s c a ughtm os tr e c e nt l y . T he gove r nm e nts oughtt o s how S a nc he z c r os s e d the bo rderw i th t he spec i fi c i nt entt o avo i d o ff i ci al re stra i ntby dem on stra t i ng that S a nc he z w a s f

a m i l i a rw i th the por ta nd c oul d ha ve e a s i l y s oughtof f i c i a l r e s tr a i nt b y a p p r o a c h in g th e a u th o r itie s a t th e p e d e s tr ia n e n tr a n c e . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oter r by denyi ng S anchez’ s m ot i on for a cqui t t al beca use the go vernm entsubm i t t ed evi dence thatw ou l d al l ow a r at i on al tri erof fa ct t o c onc l ude tha t , a tthe t i m e S a nc he z c r os s e d the bor de r , he ha d the s pe c i f i c i nt e nt 6 t o e va de of

f i c i a l r e s tr a i nt . S a nc he z c r os s e d the bor de rf r e e f r om of f i c i a l r e s tr a i nt 7 a nd unde rthe c ove rof

da r kne s s . S a nc he z w a s f a m i l i a rw i th the O t a y M e s a P or tof E n tr y , wh i c h wa s o p e n a n d s t a f f e d a tth e t i m e S a n c h e z c r o s s e d th e b o r d e r . He5

s c a le d a f

e n c e to p p e d w ith r a z o rw ir e to g a in a c c e s s to a c lo s e d c a r g o e n tr y p o in t, w hi c h w a s the onl y e ntr y poi nta tthe por ttha tw a s c l os e d a nd f r e e f r om g o v e r n m e n t o f

f ic ia ls . AF F I RME D.