Court Opinion

ID: 9463904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:19:51.858603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:21.287781
License: Public Domain

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not believe United States v. Clements, 471 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1972), and the cases and principles reviewed therein dictate the conclusion reached by my colleagues. I respectfully dissent.
As the majority candidly notes, the facts in Clements can be distinguished from those present in this case. As stated in Clements and many other cases, statutes are not identical where a different set of ultimate facts must be proven in order to obtain a conviction on each count. Sections 1325 and 1326 of 8 U.S.C. are not identical in the essential and ultimate facts which must be proven. Under Section 1325 a prior violation of that section must be shown. Under Section 1326 a prior deportation and entry without the express consent of the Attorney General is required. Section 1325, as charged here, requires proof of willfulness, whereas Section 1326 requires only a general intent. Obviously, they were separately treated by Congress, entail separate punishments, and were enacted at the same time. From the face of the statutes, it seems clear that Congress intended to authorize multiple punishments and there is no reason to reach out for “rule of lenity” and apply a unitary theory. Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 554, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1961). I would draw those distinctions, hold them to be significant, thus precluding the operation of the principle denouncing cumulative sentencing. Cf. United States v. Marotta, 518 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1975).
These statutes, when read in context with the legislative history (1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 1724) evince a strong policy of Congress to deal separately (even harshly) with all conceivable avenues of circumvention of the immigration laws. In short, Congress was plugging “loopholes” and screwing the “criminal machinery—detection, prosecution and punishment—tighter and tighter.” Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 390, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1283, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958). This it had a right to do without violating the Fifth Amendment.
I would affirm the District Court.