Court Opinion

ID: 9370071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 19:00:26.349554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.154960
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40790         Document: 00516641330             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 February 10, 2023
                                        No. 21-40790                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Rolando Jasso,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:20-CR-1143-1

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Rolando Jasso appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry after
   removal. To prove Jasso was a native and citizen of Mexico, the Government
   offered into evidence a Mexican birth certificate issued seven years after
   Jasso’s birth. The district court admitted the certificate over objection. The
   jury found Jasso guilty. We AFFIRM.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40790          Document: 00516641330             Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                          No. 21-40790

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          Rolando Jasso was charged in a one-count indictment with illegal
   reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The
   complaint and indictment alleged Jasso was a native and citizen of Mexico,
   had been removed from the United States in 1999, and had been found in
   Texas without proper documentation in 2020. The Government’s evidence
   included Jasso’s Mexican birth certificate that was part of his alien file (“A-
   file”). Jasso, though, contended he was born in 1971 in Los Arrieros, Texas,
   near the Mexican border.
          Jasso filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the introduction of the
   Mexican birth certificate and a certified English translation. 1 He objected to
   the authenticity of the document and contended the birth certificate was
   inadmissible hearsay. At a pretrial conference, his counsel relied on the fact
   that Jasso’s birth was not registered contemporaneously. Jasso’s father
   allegedly obtained the birth certificate in 1978 while the family prepared to
   relocate to the United States, as his father believed it would be easier to
   obtain a birth certificate in Mexico rather than in Jasso’s alleged birthplace in
   Texas. Counsel argued the birth certificate was inadmissible hearsay and
   inherently unreliable because it was not prepared on or near Jasso’s 1971
   birthdate.
          The Government argued the birth certificate was admissible under
   hearsay exceptions as an ancient document, a public record, or a record of
   vital statistics. See FED. R. EVID. 803(16), 803(8), 803(9). The district court
   admitted the birth certificate pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) as
   a public record of vital statistics.

          1
              We will refer to the two documents collectively.

                                                 2
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330          Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 21-40790

           At trial, the Government introduced evidence to show Jasso had no
   legal status in the United States when he was apprehended in October 2020.
   The Government introduced the Mexican birth certificate as well as several
   statements by Jasso saying he was born in Mexico and was a Mexican citizen.
   The Government argued in its rebuttal that Jasso had made numerous
   inconsistent statements about his birthplace and citizenship to authorities
   and used false names on several occasions. Further, no birth certificate from
   Starr County, Texas, could be found.
           The defense introduced the testimony of Jasso’s mother, Magdalena
   Jasso. She testified that, in 1971, she worked as a housekeeper for a midwife
   in Los Arrieros and that Jasso was born at her employer’s home. Magdalena
   testified she did not register Jasso’s birth in Texas because she did not know
   how to do so. She claimed her husband decided to obtain Jasso’s birth
   certificate in Mexico as part of the family’s preparations to move to the
   United States. She stated she did not tell Jasso he was born in Texas until
   1997.
           Jasso requested a jury instruction that referred to his claim of being
   born in Texas and that emphasized the Government had the burden of
   proving beyond a reasonable doubt he was not born in the United States. The
   Government objected to the inclusion of the burden of proof language. The
   district court offered to include only the part of the proposed instruction that
   Jasso argued he was born in Texas and was, therefore, a United States citizen.
   Defense counsel did not agree, and the proposed instruction was not given to
   the jurors. The jury found Jasso guilty.
           The district court sentenced Jasso to time served and three years of
   supervised release. Jasso filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                          3
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330           Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                     No. 21-40790

                                  DISCUSSION
          Jasso’s appellate arguments all concern the Mexican birth certificate:
   (1) the birth certificate was inadmissible hearsay and the Government,
   therefore, therefore did not meet its burden to prove Jasso was born in
   Mexico; (2) the birth certificate did not fall under any of the claimed hearsay
   exceptions; and (3) the birth certificate was inherently untrustworthy
   because it was made seven years after Jasso’s birth. Finally, Jasso challenges
   the district court’s decision to refuse his proposed jury instruction regarding
   the burden of proof and his assertion that he was born in Texas.
          Generally, this court reviews a district court’s evidentiary rulings for
   an abuse of discretion, subject to harmless error review. United States v.
   Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011). “A trial court abuses its discretion
   when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). A
   different standard of review applies, though, if the claimed error was waived
   or forfeited. United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 350–51 (5th Cir. 2010).
   Waived error occurs when a defendant knows of an issue and chooses to forgo
   or abandon it and is thus unreviewable. Id. Forfeited error occurs when a
   right is not timely asserted and is reviewed for plain error only. Id.
          To preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, a party must
   timely object to the admission of the evidence and specifically state the
   grounds for the objection. FED. R. EVID. 103(a)(1). The purpose of the rule
   is to ensure the party notifies the court as to the nature of the purported error
   “to alert [the court] to the proper course of action and enable opposing
   counsel to take corrective measures.” United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473,
   485 (5th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A loosely
   formulated and imprecise objection will not preserve error.” United States v.
   Jimenez Lopez, 873 F.2d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 1989).

                                          4
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330            Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                      No. 21-40790

          We reject the Government’s argument of waiver or forfeiture. Jasso
   sufficiently preserved the issue of authenticity for appellate review because,
   in his motion in limine, he objected to the authenticity of the birth certificate.
   See Seale, 600 F.3d at 485. While defense counsel did not raise this issue at
   the pretrial conference, this court has held that an objection is preserved even
   if the district court “misconstrues or fails to respond” to the original
   objection. United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 2009). If the
   initial objection is specific and clear, the issue is preserved for appeal even
   when the defendant does not later renew the objection. See id. Accordingly,
   “once a party raises an objection in writing, if he subsequently fails to lodge
   an oral on-the-record objection, the error is nevertheless preserved for
   appeal.” United States v. Medina–Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2003).
          While Jasso’s objection to authenticity was not lengthy, it was specific
   and clear enough to alert the district court and the Government to the
   existence of the issue. See Seale, 600 F.3d at 485. Defense counsel’s
   reference to the challenged exhibit as a birth certificate from Mexico did not
   concede authenticity; the reference was a proper description of what the
   exhibit purported to be. Likewise, defense counsel’s lack of objection to the
   admission of a similar, related exhibit did not waive the authenticity objection
   to the specific, challenged exhibit. The issue is preserved for appeal, and we
   review the authentication and hearsay issues for abuse of discretion, subject
   to harmless error review. See Jackson, 636 F.3d at 692.
          We address the authenticity argument first.
          I.     Authenticity of the birth certificate
          In his initial brief, Jasso argues the birth certificate was not a self-
   authenticating foreign document as described in Federal Rule of Evidence
   902(3). The Government contends the birth certificate was part of Jasso’s
   A-file and was authenticated by the immigration official who testified about

                                            5
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330          Page: 6    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 21-40790

   the file’s contents. Jasso asserts that the Government failed to prove the
   exhibit was an official, authentic foreign record of Jasso’s birth in Mexico.
          Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires that evidence must be
   authenticated or identified. The introducing party must “produce evidence
   sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it
   is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). That rule provides a non-exclusive list of ways
   to satisfy this requirement. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b). “The standard for
   authentication is not a burdensome one,” Jackson, 636 F.3d at 693, and
   “[t]he ultimate responsibility for determining whether evidence is what its
   proponent says it is rests with the jury.” United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d
   215, 220 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, “alleged flaws in authentication go to
   the weight of the evidence instead of its admissibility.” United States v.
   Ceballos, 789 F.3d 607, 618 (5th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citation
   omitted).
          The parties agree the Mexican birth certificate is not a self-
   authenticating foreign public document under Federal Rule of Evidence
   902(3). We agree as well, as the document was not accompanied by a
   certification from relevant officials that the document was genuine. See Fed.
   R. Evid. 902(3); see also United States v. Montemayor, 712 F.2d 104, 109 (5th
   Cir. 1983) (noting a Mexican birth certificate was properly authenticated “by
   certification of American consular officials”).
          The Government alternatively argues the document was self-
   authenticated because it was a domestic record of a regularly conducted
   activity that was certified by the custodian or another qualified person. See
   Fed. R. Evid. 902(11). The Government introduced the birth certificate
   as part of the testimony of an employee of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration
   Services. The testimony explained the birth certificate was filed into the
   official, certified A-file as part of Jasso’s application for lawful permanent

                                          6
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330          Page: 7    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 21-40790

   resident status. In sum, the Government argues that the presence of the birth
   certificate in the A-file provides sufficient legitimacy. That has not been a
   form of authentication identified in any of the caselaw cited to us.
          There are significant questions as to whether the Government
   satisfied any of the evidentiary rules for admission of this document. Even if
   none of those rules apply, admission of the certificate still must have
   prejudiced Jasso for us to reverse. Instead of resolving the validity of the
   acceptance of the certificate into evidence, we examine whether admission
   was harmless.
          II.    Harmless error
          Even if the district court erred by admitting the birth certificate into
   evidence, we may affirm if the error was harmless. See United States v.
   Okulaja, 21 F.4th 338, 344 (5th Cir. 2021). Absent a “a reasonable possibility
   that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal
   is not required.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Jasso argues the evidence concerning the country of his birth was not
   overwhelming. He argues his birthplace was the primary issue at his trial,
   and the Mexican birth certificate was the Government’s main proof of his
   birthplace.
          The Government contends the error was harmless because Jasso
   sought to introduce another exhibit that was a photocopy of the Mexican
   birth registry, which it claims contained the same information as the birth
   certificate. Further, the Government argues its other evidence satisfied its
   burden of proof that Jasso was a Mexican citizen.           The Government
   introduced several earlier statements by Jasso that he was born in Mexico and
   was a Mexican citizen. The Government also introduced Jasso’s A-file,
   which contained the application for immigration. The Government argued
   in its rebuttal that Jasso made numerous inconsistent statements about his

                                          7
Case: 21-40790      Document: 00516641330          Page: 8    Date Filed: 02/10/2023

                                    No. 21-40790

   birthplace and citizenship to authorities and used false names on several
   occasions. Further, the evidence presented at trial showed there was no birth
   certificate for Jasso from Starr County, Texas, his alleged place of birth.
          Jasso argues the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
   because the Government made the following statements about the existence
   of the Mexican birth certificate during closing arguments:
          [T]he Defendant was born in Mexico, as seen in the birth
          certificate. Exhibit 15 and 15A states that he was born in
          Mexico. So does not — so although a natural born citizen of
          the United States — if you’re born in the United States, you’re
          a United States citizen. This is not the case here.
          The Government explicitly referred to the Mexican birth certificate in
   its closing. Importantly, though, it also discussed other documents admitted
   into evidence, including Jasso’s visa and prior removal proceedings. The
   Government emphasized two Department of Homeland Security Agents’
   testimonies regarding Jasso’s alien status.
          Even if the certificate were improperly admitted into evidence, we
   find no “reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence[, if
   any,] contributed to the conviction,” and therefore no basis to reverse. See
   Okulaja, 21 F.4th at 344 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the
   failure to give Jasso’s proffered jury instruction about the burden to prove
   place of birth was harmless.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          8