Court Opinion

ID: 993841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:13:55.978863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:48.573954
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-4042

VICTOR ANTONIO SALGADO-CAMPOS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-220-A)

Submitted: December 11, 1997

Decided: December 31, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Paul P. Vangellow, BABIRAK, ALBERT, VANGELLOW & CARR,
P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United
States Attorney, Elizabeth A. Jex, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for unlawful reentry
into the United States after deportation without the express consent of
the United States Attorney General, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a), (b)(1) (1994), and the unlawful and knowing making of
an application for immigration benefits, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1001 (West Supp. 1997). Following the jury's guilty verdict, the
district judge sentenced Appellant to forty-six months on each count
to run concurrently, a two-year supervised release term, and a $100
special assessment.

Appellant first claims error in the district court's denial of his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 29 motion, asserting that because he obtained a visa, he
could not be prosecuted under § 1326. We review his motion for
acquittal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, and according the benefit of all rea-
sonable inferences to the government. See United States v. Tresvant,
677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). We find that the government
met its burden of proving its prima facie case under§ 1326. Testi-
mony was presented that Appellant did not have the permission of the
Attorney General to enter the country, and that the visa he possessed
was not valid, having been based upon a fraudulent visa application
which contained his admittedly willful misrepresentation that he had
no prior felony conviction. Moreover, evidence was presented at trial
that the visa Appellant possessed allowed him merely to deplane and
be interviewed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for
admittance into the United States, and that any"entry" into the United
States was based upon his visa application, and was only to the extent
necessary to deplane and be interviewed. On this evidence, we find
that a rational trier of fact could have found Appellant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80
(1942).

                    2
Appellant also alleges that the district court clearly erred in impos-
ing a sixteen-point enhancement to his offense level, claiming a viola-
tion of the Ex Post Facto Clause. This claim is without merit. See
United States v. Campbell, 94 F.3d 125, 126 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3