Opinion ID: 4505306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Objects of the Conspiracy

Text: The Woods state that some or all of the charged conspiracy’s object offenses were legally invalid.12 They note that all the crimes charged require facilitating an alien’s illegal presence in the United States.13 In contrast, they argue Mary’s attempt to move P.I. from 9 Cf. United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 281 (1999) (noting that the crime of kidnapping ends when “the victim is free”); see also United States v. Benjamin, 711 F.3d 371, 378 (3d Cir. 2013). 10 Likewise, this disposes of the Woods’ argument that no evidence showed the harboring offense continuing into the limitations period. 11 “A variance occurs where the charging terms of the indictment are not changed but when the evidence at the trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.” Vosburgh, 602 F.3d at 532. 12 “[I]f one of two or more alternative theories supporting a count of conviction is . . . legally invalid, then the reviewing court should vacate the jury verdict and remand for a new trial.” United States v. Syme, 276 F.3d 131, 144 (3d Cir. 2002). 13 See, e.g., DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Props., Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 248 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) requires proving “some 5 Pennsylvania back to New Jersey—an attempted interstate, not international, transfer— could not lead to a conviction under any of these statutes. But this argument rests on the assumption that, at the time of Mary’s visit, P.I. planned to remain in the United States. The evidence, however, does not compel such a finding. Instead, a jury could have inferred that P.I. was contemplating a return to Africa, and that Mary’s solicitation of P.I. was “conduct tending to substantially facilitate [P.I.’s] remaining in the United States illegally.”14 United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 99 (3d Cir. 2008).