F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 7 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALFREDO ANAYA, a/k/a Alfredo

Anaya-Enriquez,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-8091

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

D.C. NO. 95-CR-97-1

Turner A. Rouse, Orr, Buchhammer & Kehl, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for DefendantAppellant.

David A. Kubichek, Assistant United States Attorney (David D. Freudenthal, United

States Attorney, and John A. Masterson, Assistant United States Attorney, with him on

the brief), Casper, Wyoming, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.
1Valdez was not decided until after the district court’s determination in this case.

- 2 -

In this appeal, defendant Alfredo Anaya-Enriquez argues that the district court

erred by admitting evidence of his prior aggravated felony conviction at trial. We agree

with Mr. Anaya-Enriquez but conclude that the district court’s error was harmless and

affirm. 

In 1995, the government charged Mr. Anaya-Enriquez with illegal reentry into the

United States after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction, a violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Mr. Anaya-Enriquez filed a motion in limine to keep the

government from presenting evidence of his 1993 conviction for possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver, offering to stipulate that he had previously

pled nolo contendere to an aggravated felony. Mr. Anaya-Enriquez and the government

also agreed to stipulate that his conviction was a sentence enhancer rather than an element

of the § 1326 offense, but the district court disagreed and held that the conviction had to

be proven at trial. A jury ultimately convicted Mr. Anaya-Enriquez of the § 1326(b)

charge, resulting in a sentence of 77 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, the government agrees with Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s contention that the

district court erred in admitting evidence of his prior aggravated felony conviction at trial. 

Even absent the parties’ agreement on this point, however, our decision in United States

v. Valdez, 103 F.3d 95 (10th Cir. 1996), requires us to conclude that the district court’s

admission of Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s aggravated felony conviction at trial was erroneous.1
- 3 -

In Valdez, we determined that § 1326(b) is a sentence enhancement provision, rather than

an element of the underlying offense. Id. at 98. As a result, evidence of Mr. AnayaEnriquez’s prior conviction was not relevant to the issues adjudicated at trial and should

not have been admitted for the jury’s consideration. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Our conclusion that the district court erred in admitting Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s

prior aggravated felony conviction at trial does not end our analysis, however, because

“error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if it does not affect the

substantial rights of the parties.” K-B Trkg. Co. v. Riss Int’l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1156

(10th Cir. 1985). See also United States v. Arutunoff, 1 F.3d 1112, 1118 (10th Cir.

1993) (“A nonconstitutional error is harmless unless it had a substantial influence on the

jury’s verdict in the context of the entire case, or leaves one in grave doubt whether it had

such an effect.”). The party asserting error has the burden of demonstrating that his or her

substantial rights were affected. K-B Trkg. Co., 763 F.2d at 1156. Because Mr. AnayaEnriquez has failed to demonstrate how the admission of his prior felony conviction at

trial affected his substantial rights, we hold that the district court’s error in this case was

harmless. 

To obtain a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry after deportation,

the government must prove the defendant: (1) is an alien; (2) was previously arrested and

deported; (3) was thereafter found in the United States; and (4) lacked the permission of

the Attorney General. United States v. Meraz-Valeta, 26 F.3d 992, 997 (10th Cir. 1994). 
- 4 -

At trial, the only contested issue was Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s previous deportation. On this

point, the government introduced into evidence an executed Warrant of Deportation and

the testimony of two immigration officers who had signed the Warrant, attesting to Mr.

Anaya-Enriquez’s deportation. Although the testifying officers could not remember Mr.

Anaya-Enriquez personally, they recounted the procedures used in deporting aliens and

stated that no Warrant of Deportation was signed until after the alien had actually been

deported. Mr. Anaya-Enriquez presented no evidence on this or any other issue at trial

and stipulated that the thumbprint on the executed Warrant of Deportation was his. 

Under these circumstances, we can only conclude that the evidence of Mr. AnayaEnriquez’s guilt on the § 1326 charge was overwhelming and that the erroneous

admission of his prior felony conviction at trial had no affect on his substantial rights.

See United States v. Sloan, 65 F.3d 861, 865 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Where the evidence

against a defendant is overwhelming, any error in mentioning a defendant’s criminal

record is harmless.”). 

Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s reliance on Old Chief v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 644

(1997), United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 (10th Cir. 1995), modified (1996), and

United States v. Parker, 604 F.2d 1327 (10th Cir. 1979), abrogated in part on other

grounds by United States v. Pennon, 816 F.2d 527 (10th Cir. 1987), to argue that the

district court’s error was prejudicial is unavailing. In Old Chief, the Supreme Court

explicitly refrained from expressing its opinion on whether the district court’s erroneous
- 5 -

admission of evidence regarding a defendant’s prior conviction was harmless error, see

Old Chief, 117 S.Ct. at 656, n.11, while in Wacker, we held that an identical evidentiary

error was indeed harmless. See Wacker, 72 F.3d at 1473-74. Thus, neither Old Chief nor

Wacker supports Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s claim that the district court’s error in this case

entitles him to a new trial. Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s reliance on Parker to suggest that a

harmless error analysis does not apply in this case is equally misplaced given our more

recent decisions reviewing a district court’s evidentiary rulings for harmless error. See,

e.g., Wacker, 72 F.3d at 1473; Sloan, 65 F.3d at 865; Arutunoff, 1 F.3d at 1118; K-B

Trkg. Co., 763 F.2d at 1156. Following these decisions, we conclude that the district

court’s erroneous admission of Mr. Anaya-Enriquez’s prior felony conviction was

harmless and accordingly AFFIRM.