Court Opinion

ID: 2964015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:03.225344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.322442
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 19, 1996        [Not For Publication]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1381

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               NERLY OSMARD SILVESTRE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

               Francisco E. Colon-Ramirez for appellant.
               __________________________
               Joseph J.  Frattallone,  Assistant United  States  Attorney,
               ______________________
          with whom  Guillermo Gil,  United  States Attorney,  and Jose  A.
                     _____________                                 ________
          Quiles, Senior Litigation Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
          ______

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

               COFFIN, Senior  Circuit Judge.  Appellant, a  citizen of the
                       _____________________

          Dominican  Republic, who  had been  convicted of  a Puerto  Rican

          felony of  possession of a controlled  substance and subsequently

          deported, appeals  from his federal conviction  of reentering the

          United  States without  permission  of the  Attorney General,  in

          violation of 8 U.S.C.   1326(b)(2).

               Appellant  served  almost a  year in  prison in  Puerto Rico

          after conviction in 1991.   He was deported on  July 7, 1992.   A

          month later, he  returned to Puerto  Rico in a yawl,  telling the

          court  at sentencing  that he  did not  know he was  forbidden to

          return.  He  remained in Puerto Rico, working on a farm, and,  in

          April of 1993, married.   He returned  to Santo Domingo in  1994.

          His  wife, a  United States  citizen, requested  a visa  for him,

          which the American Consulate  in Santo Domingo issued on  May 24,

          1994. 

               In  the  application  he  denied having  been  deported  and

          falsely averred  that he  had lived continuously  in Puerto  Rico

          from 1986  through 1994.    He did  not  report his  Puerto  Rico

          conviction,  but  attached  to  his application  a  good  conduct

          certificate issued by the Puerto Rico police.1

               On  the  day  after issuance  of  the  visa,  May 25,  1994,

          appellant arrived at the  Luis Munoz Marin International Airport,

          presented his  visa  and passport,  and,  when a  computer  check

                              
          ____________________

               1  The certificate was issued to one Nerly Osmard-Silvestre.
          As the  government points out,  appellant's name is  Nerly Osmard
          Silvestre, his true  last name being Silvestre, Osmard  not being
          his paternal last name.

                                         -2-

          revealed an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) look-out

          for him,  underwent further examination.   When asked  whether he

          had  violated any immigration laws, he  was evasive.  Questioning

          continued  after   a  computer  check  had   revealed  his  prior

          deportation and  after  appellant's rights  had been  read and  a

          Waiver  of Rights form signed.   Appellant then  admitted that he

          had been deported and that  he had not acknowledged this  fact in

          applying for his visa.

               After a jury trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced to

          a  term  of sixty-three  months'  imprisonment plus  a  period of

          supervised release and a monetary assessment.

               On appeal,  appellant raises three  issues.  The  first, his

          claim that the district  court erred in allowing a  sixteen point

          offense  level enhancement  by  reason of  considering his  prior

          Puerto  Rican felony  conviction one  for an  "aggravated felony"

          under U.S.S.G.   2L1.2(b)(2), was acknowledged by counsel at oral

          argument to be foreclosed by our recent decision in United States
                                                              _____________

          v. Restrepo- Aguilar, 74 F.3d 361 (1st Cir. 1996).
             _________________

               Appellant's  second claim is that  he was entitled  to a two

          point  reduction  in  his   offense  level  because  he  accepted

          responsibility by admitting the  facts constituting the  elements

          of the crime for  which he was being prosecuted.   His contention

          in his brief on appeal is that he was simply presenting the legal

          issue whether a visa or "permission from the state department was

          equivalent to the Attorney General's consent."  This dresses up a

          bit  the theory advanced by trial counsel in opening: "therefore,

                                         -3-

          by giving the visa, they receive the permission from the Attorney

          General  . . . ."  Counsel then seemed to be under the impression

          that  only the INS, an  agency within the  Department of Justice,

          was involved in the issuance of visas.

               In either version this claim has the merit of ingenuity, but

          that is its extent.  Preliminarily, we observe that we review for

          clear  error only.  See United States v. Iguaran-Palmar, 926 F.2d
                              ___ _____________    ______________

          7, 9  (1st Cir. 1991).   We begin with the  inconsistency between

          appellant's statement at sentencing that he did not know, when he

          made  his trip  by yawl,  that there  were any restraints  on his

          right   to  reenter  the  United  States.    Not  only  was  this

          inconsistent with his surreptitious mode of reentry, but with his

          later successful effort to obtain a visa. 

               Of greater moment is the fact that the  visa was obtained by

          misrepresentation.   Appellant's legal theory, even if it were to

          be accepted, is nevertheless  predicated upon the lawful issuance

          of  a  visa,   not  its  procurement  by  fraud   and  chicanery.

          Appellant's  position is  like that  of a  defendant defending  a

          larceny  conviction who admitted all of the elements of the crime

          such as the taking and the intent to keep, but maintains that the

          victim gave  the property  to him.   If, however, the  "gift" had

          been procured  through misrepresentation  or coercion,  any claim

          that  defendant   would  have   been  deemed  to   have  accepted

          responsibility would be bizarre.

               Indeed,  the  claim  would  turn  a   vice  into  a  virtue.

          Appellant's   conduct  in   obtaining   a  visa   through   false

                                         -4-

          representation  is within  the spirit  if not  the letter  of the

          strictures of  U.S.S.G.    3C1.1 relating  to the  obstruction of

          justice.   Application  Note 3(b)  refers to  committing perjury;

          3(c) refers to  producing a  false document or  record during  an

          official  investigation;  and  3(g)  consists  of  "providing   a

          materially  false statement  to  a law  enforcement officer  that

          significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or

          prosecution of the  instant offense."  In other  words, appellant

          seeks to  parlay conduct  which might  conceivably support  a two

          point increase in his offense level into a two point decrease.  
                ________                                       ________

               Appellant's third  issue, that  the court erred  in allowing

          improper  closing references  by  the prosecutor  to  appellant's

          statements as  "lies,"  requires  little  discussion.    Although

          appellant  in his brief  asserts that objection  was timely made,

          the only effort to  object was made after the  prosecutor's final

          remarks,  when counsel said merely,  "I have an  objection to the

          closing argument."   Assuming arguendo that the brevity  (two and

          one half pages  of transcript)  of the closing  argument and  its

          focus  on appellant's misrepresentations sufficiently alerted the

          court to the basis of objection, we find no error.

               Here  the  prosecutor referred  on  three  occasions to  the

          statements  made  in  applying for  the  visa  as  lies or  false

          statements.   It is  hard for us  to see any  dereliction of duty

          here,  even though  we have  been alert to  prosecutorial excess.

          Appellant based his defense on having obtained a  visa.  The fact

          that his success was brought about by misrepresentations was both

                                         -5-

          relevant and undisputed.  There is no hint here of the prosecutor

          injecting his own  opinion.  Nor, indeed,  could these references

          have added anything to what was already conceded before the jury.

               AFFIRMED.       

                                         -6-