Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hermilio Vencis CARDOSO, aka Jesus Morales-Mena; et al., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 06-10392
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hermilio Vencis CARDOSO, aka Jesus Morales-Mena; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hermilio Vencis CARDOSO, aka Jesus Morales-Mena; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10392.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Daniel R. Drake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Neil Clifford Labarge, Law Office of Neil C. Labarge, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hermilio Vencis Cardoso appeals his jury trial conviction for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cardoso contends that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that he must be found not guilty if the jury deter mines he had a reasonable mistaken belief about whether he had the consent of the Attorney General to re-enter the country. We review the denial of a requested jury instruction, based on an inadequate factual foundation, for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 715 (9th Cir.1996). Because there was insufficient evidence to sustain Cardoso's "mistaken belief' theory, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cardoso's jury instruction request. See United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.