Court Opinion

ID: 2963755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:48.901028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.696683
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 29, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1924 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                HENRY ANTONIO SANTANA, a/k/a WILLIAM ALFREDO PANTOJAS,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Benicio Sanchez  Rivera, Federal Public  Defender, and Gustavo  A.
            _______________________                                ___________
        Gelpi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief for appellant.
        _____
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Maria M. Pabon,  Assistant
            _____________                           ______________
        United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation
                                    _______________________
        Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Appellant Henry Antonio Santana appeals his
                 __________

            conviction  on the charge of attempting to reenter the United

            States, after previously having been deported, without having

            obtained the  permission of the Attorney  General.  Appellant

            alleges  that: (1)  the government  and  court constructively

            amended  the indictment against him; and  (2) the court erred

            in failing to give the proper jury instructions.  We affirm.

                 Appellant  was charged  in a  one count  indictment with

            illegally  reentering the  United  States in  violation of  8

            U.S.C.   1326.   At trial, appellant moved for  a judgment of

            acquittal   on   the   ground   that   the   government   had

            constructively  amended  the  indictment since  the  evidence

            showed that appellant was guilty at most of attempted reentry

            not the  reentry for which he  had been indicted.   The court

            agreed  with  appellant that  the  facts  presented at  trial

            supported only  a charge  of attempted  reentry.  The  court,

            however, denied the motion for acquittal.  The court reasoned

            that the difference between  the indictment and the proof  at

            trial   amounted  only   to   a   nonprejudicial   variance.1

            Subsequently, the court  instructed the jury as if  the crime

            charged were attempted reentry.  

                                
            ____________________

            1.  A  deported  alien  can  violate Section  1326  in  three
            separate  ways: if he "enters," "attempts to enter" or "is at
            any time found  in" the United States.  See  United States v.
                                                    ___  _____________
            Rodriguez, 26 F.3d 4, 8 (1st Cir. 1994).
            _________

                 The  determinative issue  in  this case  is whether  the

            difference between  the indictment  and the proof  offered at

            trial amounted to a constructive  amendment or to a variance.

            The former is  grounds for reversal per se.  United States v.
                                                ___ __   _____________

            Fisher, 3 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1993).  The    latter    is
            ______

            grounds  for  reversal  only  if  it  affects  a  defendant's

            substantial rights.  Id.  Appellant does not contend that the
                                 __

            differences in proof affected his substantial rights.

                 No constructive amendment occurred in the instant  case.

            A  constructive amendment  of an  indictment occurs  when the

            evidence  at trial  and/or jury  instructions  "broaden[] the
                                                            _______

            possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the

            indictment."   United  States v.  Miller, 471  U.S. 130,  138
                           ______________     ______

            (1985)  (emphasis in  original);  see also  United States  v.
                                              ___ ____  _____________

            Floresca,  38 F.3d 706, 710 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v.
            ________                                     _____________

            Rosenthal, 9 F.3d 1016, 1021 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v.
            _________                                    _____________

            Kramer, 955 F.2d 479, 487 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct.
            ______                                ____  ______

            595  (1992); United States v. Wright, 932 F.2d 868, 864 (10th
                         _____________    ______

            Cir.), cert.  denied, 502  U.S. 962 (1991).   A  constructive
                   ____   ______

            amendment violates  both a defendant's fifth  amendment right

            to be tried only on the charge made by the grand jury and his

            sixth amendment right  to be informed of  the charges against

            him.   United  States v. Kelly,  722 F.2d 873,  876 (1st Cir.
                   ______________    _____

            1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1070 (1984).  
                   ____  ______

                                         -3-

                 Appellant was indicted for illegal  reentry after having

            been  deported.  He was  convicted of the  attempt to reenter

            after  having  been deported.    As  appellant concedes,  the

            latter  is  a lesser  included offense  of  the former.   See
                                                                      ___

            United  States v.  Anderson, 987  F.2d 251,  254 (9th  Cir.),
            ______________     ________

            cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct. 157 (1993).   By indicting appellant
            ____   ______

            for illegal reentry, the  grand jury then necessarily charged

            all the  elements  of the  offense for  attempted reentry  as

            well.  Since the different proof  at trial did not add to the

            elements of the offense  charged, appellant was not convicted

            of  a crime  not  charged  in the  indictment.    Nor can  he

            reasonably have been unaware of  the nature of the accusation

            against him.  See United  States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d  1, 6
                          ___ ______________    __________

            (1st  Cir.  1994)  (no  material prejudice  as  long  as  the

            indictment gives  defendant notice of the  events charged and

            the proof at trial centers on the same events).

                 Appellant also claims the court erred by not instructing

            the jury  to consider  whether he  attempted  to reenter  the

            country  only after the jury had considered whether he had in

            fact  reentered the  country  as charged  in the  indictment.

            Appellant did not object to the charge given.  Therefore, our

            review  is limited to plain error.  United States v. Andujar,
                                                _____________    _______

            49 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 1995).  

                 Since the evidence presented at trial did not  support a

            finding that appellant  reentered the country  illegally, the

                                         -4-

            court committed no error,  much less plain error,  in failing

            to give the requested instruction.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -5-