FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 3, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10048 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 70 -C R -01-T C B -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O S E W I L L I A M A V E L A R - A M A Y A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 3, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Jose A vel ar -A m ay a app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on for i l l egal re entryi nt o the U ni t ed2

St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 )
. A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 1992, A ve l a r - A m a y a , ac i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , w a s l i vi ng i l l e ga l l y i n L os A ng el es , C al i forni a. In O ct ob er19 92 , A vel ar -A m ay a pl ed gu i l ty t o st at e c harges of se l l i ng /transpo rt i ng narc ot i cs and rece i ved a 19 8-day j ai l se nt ence . In M ay 19 93 , af t erse rvi ng hi s s ent ence , A vel ar -A m ay a w as depo rt ed t o E l S al vado r. T w o w ee ks af

t erre turni ng t o E l S al vado r, A vel ar -A m ay a app l i ed for a n i m m i g ran tv i sa atth e U n i t ed S t at es E m b assy i n E l S al v ad o r. O n h i s v i sa appl i ca t i on , A vel ar -A m ay a f al se l y deni ed thathe had ever been conv i ct ed of a control l ed subst ance offe nse or had ever bee n d eport ed. A vel ar -A m ay a a l so fa i l ed t o st at e thathe had an al i en nu m ber a nd a s oci al se curi ty num ber. O n Jun e 1, 19 93 , A vel ar -A m ay a r ec ei ved a vi sa . O n Jun e 19, 19 93 , A vel ar A ma y atr a v e l e d t o Lo s A n g e l e s a n d p r e s e n t e d h i s v i s at o U n i t e d St a t e s c u s t o ms ag en t s. T h e cu st o m s ag en t s p erm i tt ed A v el ar-A m aya t o en t er th e U n i t ed S t at es. O n F e b ru a ry 1 , 2 0 0 6 , A v e la r - A m a y aw a s a rr e s te d in G e o r g iao n as ta te c h a r g e o f in te r f e r e n c e w ith c u s to d y . W h ile b e in g h o u s e d a t th e C la y to n C o u n ty Ja i l , agent s f

rom the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty ( “ D H S ”) t oo k A vel ar A m a y a ’s f

in g e rp r in ts a n d m a tc h e d th e m w ith h is 1 9 9 3 d e p o r ta tio n w a rr a n t. O n A pr i l 11, 2006, A ve l a r - A m a y aw a s i ndi c t e d on one c ountof be i ng f ound3

i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f

t e rha vi ng be e n pr e vi ous l y de por t e d a nd w i thoutha vi ng obt a i ne d the c ons e ntof

e i the rthe A tt orne y G e ne r a l orthe S e c r e t a ry of H om e l a nd S e c u r ity to r e ap p lyf

o ra d m is s io n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 )
. S pe c i f i c a l l y , the i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d A ve l a r - A m a y aw i th ha vi ng be e n “ f ound i n” the U ni t ed S t at es on F ebruary16 , 20 06 , w hi ch w as the dat e D H S offi ci al s m at ched A vel ar -A m ay a’ s f

i ng erpri nt s and det erm i ned h i s s t atus as a pre vi ou sl y deport ed
a l i e n. P ri or t o tri al , A vel ar -A m ay a m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm ent , ar gu i ng that th e i n d i ctm en tw as b arred b y th e fi v e-year statu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. A v el ar-A m aya cl ai m ed thathe w as “ foun d i n” the U ni t ed S t at es w hen cust om s a gent s perm i tt ed h im to e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s in J u n e 1 9 9 3 a n d th a t, th e r e f o r e , th e f iv e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s h a d e x p ir e d in J u n e 1 9 9 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d A v e la r - A m a y a ’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. T he di stri ctcourtdecl i ned t o fi nd thatA vel ar -A m ay a w as “ foun d i n” the U ni t ed S t a t e s i n 1993 be c aus e A ve l a r - A m a y aha d know i ngl y pr ovi de d f a l s e i nf orm a t i on to th e U n ite d S ta te s E m b a s s y in E l S a lv a d o ra n d w ith h e ld m a te r ia l in f o rm a tio n in order t o o bt ai n h i s vi sa . P ursuantt o a w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent , A vel ar -A m ay a e nt er ed a c on di t i on al pl eaof gu i l ty. In the pl eaagre em ent , the part i es st i pu l at ed t o the fa ct s r ec i t edWe reviewa district cour t’s denial of a

motion to di smiss an indictment for an a buse of 1 discretion, and review thedistrict court’s interpretation and a pplication of the statute of limit ations de novo. United States v. Torres, 318 F .3d 1058, 1061 n.6 (11th Cir. 2003). 4 abov e. In addi t i on , A vel ar -A m ay a s t i pu l at ed thathe had n everob t ai ned perm i ss i on t o reapp l y f

or entryi nt o the U ni t ed S t at es af t erhavi ng been depo rt ed
a nd tha tthe r e w e r e no a va i l abl e r e c or ds t o i ndi c a t e w he the rof f i c i a l s c onduc t e d a backgrou nd chec k atthe U ni t ed S t at es E m bass y i n E l S al vado r i n 1 99 3. A vel ar A m a y aa l s o w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e on a ny gr ound
e x c e p t as e n te n c e h ig h e rth a n th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e r a n g e o rth e d e n ia l o f h is
m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. T he di stri ctcourtac ce pt ed A vel ar -A m ay a’ s pl ea . A vel ar -A m ay a w as s e n te n c e d to 5 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A v e la r - A m a y af ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, A v e la r - A m a y ac o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nta s t i m e - ba rr e d. 1 U nd er8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) , an al i en i s s ubj ec tt o i m pri sonm enti f he has been pr e vi ous l y de por t e d, a nd the n “ e nt e r s , a tt e m pt s t o e nt e r , ori s a tany t i m e f ound i n, the U ni t ed S t at es ” w i tho uthavi ng ob t ai ned the express consentof the A tt orney G e ne r a l t o r e appl y f

ora dm i s s i on. 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a )
. T he appl i c abl e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons pr ovi de s , “ E xc e pta s othe rw i s e e xpr e s s l y pr ovi de d by l a w , no pe r s on5

s ha l l be pr os e c ut e d, tr i e d, orpuni s he d f ora ny of f e ns e , notc api t a l , unl e s s the i nd i ctm enti s f

ou nd or the i nform at i on i s i nst i tut ed w i thi n fi ve ye ar s nextaf t ersuch of f e ns e s ha l l ha ve be e n c om m i tt e d. ” 18 U . S . C . § 3282( a ) ; s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l a rke , 312 F . 3d 1343, 1346 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( pr ovi di ng tha tthe s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s f

o r8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 is f

o u n d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 8 2 )
. A s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons i n c r i m i na l c a s e s or di na r i l y be gi ns t o run w he n the
c r i m e i s c om pl e t e . T ous s i e v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 397 U . S . 112, 115, 90 S . C t . 858, 860 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Gi l b e r t , 1 3 6 F . 3 d 1 4 5 1 , 1 4 5 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 )
. “ [ A] vi ol at i on of § 1 32 6 i s acont i nu i ng offe nse thatcan run ov era l on g p er i od of t i m e, a s the of f e ns e c onduc tbe gi ns w he n the a l i e n i l l e ga l l y e nt e r s the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd cont i nu es un t i l the al i en i s a ctual l y ‘ foun d’ by i m m i grat i on autho ri t i es . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 44 7 F . 3d 13 65 , 13 69 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T hu s, the appl i cabl e f i vey e a rs ta tu e o f

lim ita tio n s f

o ra§ 1 3 2 6 o f

f e n s e b e g in s to ru n w h e n th e a lie n is

“ fo u n d i n ” th e U n i t ed S t at es b y i m m i g rat i o n au th o ri t i es.

“ [ A ] n a l i e n i s c ons truc t i ve l y ‘ f ound i n’ the U ni t e d S t a t e s w he n the go vernm entei ther kno w s of or, w i th the exerc i se of di l i gence typi ca l of l aw en fo rc em en t au th o riti es , co u ldh av e d isco v er ed th e ill eg ality o f th e d ef en d an t’ s pr e s e nc e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d)
. A ve l a r - A m a y aa r gue s tha ti m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s c oul d ha ve di s c ove r e d hi s i l l e ga l r e e ntry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n J uneF or thi s re a so n, Unite d State s v . Sc ott , 4 47 F .3 d 1 36 5 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 6) , is 2 distinguishable. In Scott, the government wa s deeme d to have c onstructively “found”the alien when the alien, who had be en ar rested a nd jailed under

an alias, c onfesse d to a DHS ag ent duringan interview not only his true name but also the fac t of his prior depor tation and illeg al 6 1993 i f the y ha d a c t e d di l i ge nt l y be c aus e hi s vi s ac ont a i ne d true i de nt i f y i ng i n fo rm at i o n an d h e en t ered ata U n i t ed S t at es p o rto f en try. T he prob l em for A vel ar -A m ay a i s that , al tho ug h A vel ar -A m ay a use d h i s r ea l
n a m e a n d d a te o f

b irth to o b ta in av is aa n d e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s , h e lie d ab o u t h is p r io rf e lo n y d ru g c o n v ic tio n in th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d h is r e s u ltin g d e p o r ta tio n . T hus , w he n A ve l a r - A m a y ar e e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n J une 1993, i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s w e r e a w a r e of

A ve l a r - A m a y a ’ s pr e s e nc e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , butw e r e not
a w a r e o f th e ille g a lity o f

h is p r e s e n c e . A v e la r - A m a y ac o n te n d s th a t it w a s u n r e a s o n ab le f o rc u s to m s a g e n ts n o t to further i nv es t i gat e hi s i m m i grat i on st atus. W e di sa gree . A vel ar -A m ay a pre se nt ed
c u s t o ms a g e n t s wi th af a c i a l l y v a l i d v i s ai s s u e d b y th e Un i t e d St a t e s Em b a s s y i n El S a l va dor
. A ve l a r - A m a y adoe s notc ont e nd tha tthe vi s a( ora ny othe ri nf orm a t i on he pr e s e nt e d) s houl d ha ve putthe c us t om s a ge nt s on not i c e tha the c oul d not l e ga l l y e nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s ortha the ha d pr e vi ous l y be e n de por t e d. U nde rthe
c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e , it w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le f o rc u s to m s a g e n ts to a d m it A ve l a r - A m a y aw i thoutf ur the ri nve s t i ga t i on i nt o w he the rhi s pr e s e nc e m i ghtbe i l l egal
. Indeed, the fa i l ure of c ust om s a gent s t o d i sc ov erthe i l l egal i ty of A vel ar 2re entr

y . In o ther w ords , th ealien in Sc ott alerte d immigratio n o ff

ic ials to th eill e g ality

of his p re s en c einth eUn i t e d

S t at e s , m akin gth e§ 1 3 2 6 o f f en s ec o mp l e t e . H ere , Av e l ar- Am aya conce aled his prior deportation and illeg al re entry (i.e., the illeg ality

of his presence in the United States) from customs ag ents at the port of entry by using his fraudulently

obtained visa. Thus, immigration officials had to unc over his illeg al status through rea sonable investig ation after Ave lar-Amaya wa s arrested on state charg es and brought to their attention. 7 A m a y a ’ s pr e s e nc e w a s a ttr i but abl e t o nott o a ny l a c k of di l i ge nc e on the i rpa r t , but t o A ve l a r - A m a y a ’ s s uc c e s s f ul e f f or t s t o c onc e a l hi s i l l e ga l s t a tus thr ough the us e of a f raud ul ent l y obt ai ned v i sa . T h u s , A v e la r - A m a y aw a s n o t c o n s tru c tiv e ly f o u n d in th e U n ite d S ta te s in J u n e 1 9 9 3 . R a th e r , A v e la r - A m a y aw a s “f o u n d in ” th e U n ite d S ta te s , a n d h is of f e ns e w a s c om pl e t e , i n F e brua ry 2006, w he n D H S a ge nt s di s c ove r e d the i l l egal i ty of A vel ar -A m ay a’ s pre se nce i n the U ni t ed S t at es . S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. D eL eon, 44 4 F . 3d 41 , 52 -53 (1stC i r. 20 06 ) ( concl ud i ng that , w here an al i en us e d de c e pt i on t o a voi d de t e c t i on by i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s a tapor tof

e ntry , the al i en w as no t“ foun d i n” the U ni t ed S t at es for s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s purpo se s w hen he ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es , bu tw hen h i s s t atus as a deport ed al i en w as di s c ove r e d thr ough af

i nge rpr i ntm a t c h a f

t e rhe w a s a rr e s t e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A ce vedo , 22 9 F . 3d 35 0, 35 5-56 (2d C i r. 20 00 ) ( fi nd i ng that , a deport ee w ho gai ned
r e a dm i s s i on t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s by pr e s e nt i ng a n i nva l i d gr e e n c ar d a tapor tof entrydi d n otpl ac e i m m i grat i on offi ci al s on n ot i ce thathi s pre se nce i n the U ni t ed S t at es w as i l l egal even tho ug h the al i en used hi s r ea l nam e)
.8

B e c au s e th e f

iv e - y e a rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s d id n o t b e g in to ru n u n til F eb ru ary 2 0 0 6 , A v el ar-A m aya’ s A p ri l 2 0 0 6 i n d i ctm en tw as t i m el y. A cco rd i n g l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng A vel ar -A m ay a’ s pre tri al
m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. AF F I RME D.