N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PAB LO C ALDER ON-JIM ENEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50534

D.C . No. 3:13-C R -02467-JAH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN, LUC ER O * * , a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JAN 07 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Te n th C i rc uit, sitting by de signa tion.
1Pa

blo C a lde ron-Jim e ne z a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for be i ng a re m ove d a l ie n found in the Unite d State s in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing C a lde ron-Jim e ne z ’ s m otion to dism iss theindic tm e nt due to viola tions of dueproc e ss in his 2008 expe dite d
re m ova l proc e e d ing. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the 2008 re m o va l proc e e ding wa s de fe c tive , C a lde ron-Jim e ne z ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te any re sulting pre

judic e a s he ha d no “pla

usible grounds for re lie f.” Unite d State s v . Morie l

-Luna , 585 F.3d 1191, 1196 (9th C ir. 2009) (quota tion omitte d). First, be c a use C a lde ron-Jim e ne z wa s not “ inspe c te d

an d a dm itte d or pa

role d into theUnite d State s” in 2008, hewa s ine l igible for a djustm e n t of sta t us a nd wa i ve r of ina dm issibility
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a ); 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b)(1)(A)(I) (whe re a lie n is ina dm issible unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(7), the inspe c tion offic e r in a n e xpe dite d re m o va l proc e e ding “ s ha l l orde r the a lie n re m ove d from

the Unite d State s without further he aring” ); 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h) (listing five

c ove re d grounds subje c t to wa ive r of ina dm issibility none of whic h a re 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(7)). To the e xte nt C a l de ron-Jim e ne z se e ks to a rgue that he should hav e be e n pa

role d, suc h de te rm inat ions a re the disc re tion of the Attorne y Ge ne ra l a

nd “ c annot be a

ppe a le d to IJs or c ourts.” Rodrigue z v . Robbins , 804 F.3d 1060, 1081 (9th C ir. 2015). Se c ond, C a lde ron-Jim e n e z c annot m ake , a s 2he m

ust, a pla usible showing tha

t the im m igrat ion offic e r would ha v e e xe rc i se d disc re tion in gra

nting him a withdra wa l of his a

pplic at ion for a dm ission. Unite d State s v . Barajas-Alv

arado , 655 F.3d 1077, 1089 (9th C ir. 2011). Thesix fa c tors
se t forth in theInspe c tor’ s Fie ld M anua l tha t gove rn this inquiry , se e id. at 1090,
we igh a ga inst C a lde ron-Jim e ne z , prim arily be c a use , a s disc usse d a

bove , he like ly
c ould not ha

ve ove rc om e t

he ground of ina d

m issibility
. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing C a lde ronJim e n e z ’ s disc ove ry

m otion for inform ation a bout whic h a lie ns a

re pe rm itte d to withdra w the i r a pplic ations for a dm ission a nd how suc h de c isions a

re m a de by borde r patrol a ge nts, give n the broa d, ge ne ra l sc ope of his writte n m otion. Se e Unite d State s v . C ade t , 727 F.2d 1453, 1468 (9th C i r. 1984). Eve n a ssum ing tha t he na rrowe d the disc ove ry

re que st a t ora l a rgum e nt be low— an d the re c ord is fa r from c le ar on this point—

the de nia l of disc ove ry

wa s still not a

n a buse of disc re tion. As discusse d a bove , the fa c tors in theInspe c tor’ s Fie ld M anua l
c om prise the prim a

ry fram e work for de te rm ining thepla usibility of re lie f, BarajasAlv a rado , 655 F.3d a

t 1089-90, a

nd those fa c tors strongly

indic ate tha

t re lie f is

3im

pla usible he re re ga

rdle ss of a

ny c om pa ra tive ana ly sis. Se eUnite d State s v . Budziak , 697 F.3d 1105, 1113 (9th C ir. 2012). 1 3. Eve n if the distric t

c ourt e rre d in a

pply ing Batson v . K

e n tuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by

fa iling to “ e v a luate the pe rsua sive n e ss of the gove rnm e nt’ s fa c ia lly
ne utra l re a son,” Unite d State s v . Alv are

z-Ulloa , 784 F.3d 558, 565 (9th C ir. 2015),
we ne ve rthe le ss a ffirm on de novo re vie w, se e id. On a ppe a l, C a lde ron-Jim e ne z invite s a c om p ara t ive juror a

na ly sis, e .g. , K

e sse r v . C ambra , 465 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba

nc ), but this a

na ly s is doe s not e sta

blish tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s
artic ulate d ra c e -ne utra l re a sons re ga rding its strike of the only Afric an-Am e ric an
m e m b e r of the jury

pa ne l we re pre te x tua l . Of note , none of the othe r pane l
m e m b e rs ha d the sa

m e c o nste lla

tion of c ha

ra c te ristic s. Se e Alv a re

z-Ulloa , 784 F.3d at 567 (noting tha

t struc k juror ha d c om

bina t ion of fa c tors “ m aking him a
m ore attra c tive ta

rge t for a strike tha n” an othe r juror). 4. The de struc tion of surve illa nc e vide o foota ge from

a c am e ra towe r loc ate d ne ar the borde r did not re sult in a viola tion of C a lde ron-Jim e ne z ’ s due proc e s s rights. There wa s no indic ation tha t the vide o would ha

ve e sta blishe d tha

t

1 C a lde ron-Jim e ne z ’ s c onc lusory argum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s ruling re sulte d in a viola

tion of Brady

v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is be lie d by the re c o rd, and sim ila

rly fa ils. Se e Runninge agle v . Ry an , 686 F.3d 758, 769 (9th C ir. 2012); U nite d State

s v . Doe , 705 F.3d 1134, 1152 (9th C i r. 2013).

4he e n te re d

the c ountry

in 2013 under c onsta

n t obse rvation c onstituting “ offic ia l
re stra i nt.” Se e Unite d State s v . Ramos-Godine

z , 273 F.3d 820, 824 (9th C ir. 2001). For e xam ple , both borde r pat

rol a ge nts involve d

in C a lde ron-Jim e n e z ’ s
a ppre h e n sion te stifie d tha

t the y we re not dire c te d to his loc ation by any c am e ra ope ra t ors. B e c a

use the vide o e vide nc e in que stion ha d littlebe aring on C a lde ronJim e n e z ’ s de fe nse , the gove rnm e nt did not ac t in ba d fa ith. Se e Unite d State s v . Siv i lla , 714 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th C ir. 2013). 2 5. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in a llowing the

gove rnm e nt to introduc e into e vide nc e a c opy of C a lde ron-Jim e ne z ’ s birth c e rtific ate obta ine d from his Spe c ia l Agric u l tura l W orke rs a pplic at ion file
. 3 W e c annot sa y tha t the use of his birth c e rtific ate se riously a ffe c te d the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta tion of the proc e e dings, Unite d State s v . C he n C hiang Liu , 631 F.3d 993, 999 (9th C ir. 2011), be c a

use the gove rnm e nt a lso re lie d on othe r e vide nc e
— inc luding C a lde ronJim e n e z ’ s own sta

te m e nts to a

borde r patrol a ge nt tha

t he wa s a M e xic an

2 For sim ila

r re a sons, thela c k of a

jury instruc tion on this point— an issue not ra ise d be low— wa s not pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Fly e r , 633 F.3d 911, 916 (9th C i r. 2011).

3 Pla in e rror re vie w is prope r be c a use C a lde ron-Jim e ne z did not ra i se this ground for e xc l u ding thebirth c e rtific ate be low. Se e Unite d State s v . Sims , 617 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th C ir. 1980). 5c itiz e n—

to e sta blish his alie na g e , a

nd C a l de ron-Jim e ne z did not c ha lle nge this issue during ope ning or c losing sta te m e nts. 6. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in im posing a se nte nc e of se ve nty
m onths of im

prisonm e n t. C a l de ron-Jim e ne z ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t a c rim ina l thre ats
c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 422 wa s not a c rim e of viole nc e unde r § 2L1.2 of theSe n te nc ing Guide line s is squa re ly fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Villav ic e nio-Burrue l , 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th C ir. 2010). Furthe r, C a lde ronJim e n e z ’ s re lia

nc e on Alle

y nev . Unite d State

s for the proposition tha

t a “ finding of fa c t [that] a lte rs the le ga lly

pre sc ribe d punishm e nt so a s to a ggravate it” m u st be
a lle ge d in theindic t

m e nt a nd submitte d to thejury ,” 133 S. C t. 2151, 2162 (2013), ignore s the fa c t tha

t prior c onvic tions c onstitute a “ na rrow e xc e ption” to this ge ne ra l rule , id . at 2160 n.1 (c iting Alme ndare z-Torre s v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998)). AFFIRM E D.

6