Court Opinion

ID: 9368793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 01:00:26.972629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.982527
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40055         Document: 00516636673             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-40055
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                February 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Pedro Estrada-Rodriguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:20-CR-1863-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Pedro Estrada-Rodriguez appeals his conviction following a jury trial
   for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district
   court plainly erred by not instructing the jury that his specific intent to remain
   in the United States when reentering was an element of the offense and that
   the evidence was insufficient to support such specific intent.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40055      Document: 00516636673          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/06/2023

                                    No. 22-40055

          At trial, Estrada-Rodriguez did not object to the district court’s jury
   instructions or renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all
   evidence; accordingly, we review both of his challenges for plain error. See
   United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903, 909 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.
   Smith, 878 F.3d 498, 502-03 (5th Cir. 2017). His contentions are foreclosed
   by our decisions holding that illegal reentry is not a specific intent crime and
   is instead a general intent crime requiring the Government to prove merely
   that the defendant voluntarily reentered the country. See United States v.
   Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d 65, 68-69 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
   Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court’s
   jury instructions were therefore not erroneous, and there was ample evidence
   of guilt on the essential elements that the Government was required to prove.
   See Smith, 878 F.3d at 503; United States v. Esparza, 678 F.3d 389, 392 (5th
   Cir. 2012); Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d at 237-39.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2