Court Opinion

ID: 9405347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 00:00:34.265997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.440010
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50746        Document: 00516802278             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50746
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                  June 27, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Oscar Alonso-Esparza,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:22-CR-346-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Oscar Alonso-Esparza appeals his bench-trial conviction for
   personating another when applying for admission to the United States, in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). He asserts the district court erred in
   denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a claimed

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50746      Document: 00516802278            Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                     No. 22-50746

   custodial interrogation prior to being advised of his rights under Miranda v.
   Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
          When considering the denial of a suppression motion, the district
   court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error; its conclusions of law, de
   novo. E.g., United States v. Nelson, 990 F.3d 947, 952 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Because evidentiary rulings are subject to the harmless-error doctrine,
   “[r]eversible error occurs only when the admission of evidence substantially
   affects the rights of a party”. United States v. Clark, 577 F.3d 273, 287 (5th
   Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Where the evidentiary ruling involves a
   Miranda violation, it is the Government’s burden to show the error was
   harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g., United States v. Arellano-Banuelos,
   912 F.3d 862, 869 n.3 (5th Cir. 2019)
          Even assuming the court erred in denying the suppression motion, any
   error was harmless. Alonso does not challenge the stipulated facts (for the
   bench trial subsequent to denial of the suppression motion) that, prior to the
   alleged custodial interrogation, he presented a birth certificate bearing a
   name different from his own to a Customs and Border Protection Officer at a
   port of entry into the United States.            Thus, the record—absent the
   challenged evidence—sufficiently establishes Alonso personated another
   when applying for admission into the United States. See United States v.
   Knight, 514 F.2d 1286, 1286–87 (5th Cir. 1975) (affirming § 1546 conviction
   where defendant presented birth certificate and state identification card
   issued to different individual); see also United States v. Carillo-Colmenero, 523
   F.2d 1279, 1283 (5th Cir. 1975) (clarifying § 1546 “is not limited to persons
   applying for entry-type documents”). Accordingly, any assumed error did
   not affect his substantial rights and was, therefore, harmless. See Arellano-
   Banuelos, 912 F.3d at 869 n.3; Clark, 577 F.3d at 287–88.
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2