Court Opinion

ID: 2793326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-13 21:01:15.731757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:58.838868
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             APR 13 2015

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50099

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00116-CJC-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
FERNANDO MARTINEZ-CUEVAS,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 9, 2015**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and QUIST,*** Senior District
Judge.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
        ***
             The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
                                         -2-
      Fernando Martinez-Cuevas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count

of aiding and assisting an inadmissible alien convicted of an aggravated felony to

enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1327. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Martinez-Cuevas argues that the district court erred by applying a sentencing

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) for “intentionally or recklessly creating

a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.” The

commentary notes for U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 provide:

      Reckless conduct to which the adjustment from subsection (b)(6)
      applies includes a wide variety of conduct (e.g., . . . harboring persons
      in a crowded, dangerous, or inhumane condition; or guiding persons
      through . . . a dangerous or remote geographic area without adequate
      food, water, clothing, or protection from the elements).

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 cmt. n.5. The undisputed facts in the record show that Martinez-

Cuevas along with others used a panga boat – an open air vessel – to transport

twenty-three passengers at night in the open sea for several hours. The boat lacked

basic safety features such as a fire extinguisher, navigational lights, sound

producing devices, visual distress signals, and other flotation devices such as life

rafts or life-saving rings. In addition, the boat was crowded with fuel cans.
                                         -3-
Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6).

      Martinez-Cuevas also argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1327 violates the Due Process

Clause because it is a strict liability crime. In United States v. Flores-Garcia, 198

F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000), we interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1327 and concluded

that “[t]he defendant’s knowledge of an alien’s prior felony conviction is not an

element of 8 U.S.C. § 1327; the government need only prove that the defendant

knew that the alien he aided or assisted was inadmissible to the United States.”

Martinez-Cuevas argues that Flores-Garcia was wrongly decided. However, we

are bound by the holding in Flores-Garcia. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889,

899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Moreover, under the holding of Flores-Garcia, 8

U.S.C. § 1327 contains the mens rea requirement that the defendant have known

“that the alien he aided or assisted was inadmissible to the United States.”

Flores-Garcia, 198 F.3d at 1123. Therefore, 8 U.S.C. § 1327 is not, as Martinez-

Cuevas argues, a strict liability crime. See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394,

406 n.6 (1980) (explaining that a strict liability crime is a “crime for which

punishment can be imposed without proof of any mens rea at all.” (emphasis

added)); see, e.g., United States v. Cupa-Guillen, 34 F.3d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 1994)

(rejecting defendant’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a strict liability crime
                                        -4-
because the statute contains the requirement that the government prove that the

defendant acted with the general intent to re-enter the United States). Accordingly,

we reject Martinez-Cuevas’ challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1327.

      AFFIRMED.