Court Opinion

ID: 5122133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-29 20:00:32.781554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.706438
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 29 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    20-50176

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                3:19-mj-23221-FAG-H-1
 v.

EFRAIN CERVANTES-RAMIREZ,                       MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted August 3, 2021
                              Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Defendant Efrain Cervantes-Ramirez appeals the district court’s decision that

affirmed the magistrate judge’s acceptance of his guilty plea to the crime of

attempted illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Cervantes-Ramirez

claimed knowledge of alienage was an element of that offense. The magistrate judge

rejected Cervantes-Ramirez’s contention and so did not recite knowledge of alienage

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
as an element of the offense during the plea colloquy.           Cervantes-Ramirez

nonetheless entered a guilty plea and then appealed to the district court, which also

rejected his contention. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to

consider Cervantes-Ramirez’s appeal of those decisions, and we affirm.

      In a case consolidated for argument with this one, we held that 8 U.S.C. §

1325(a) is a regulatory offense, and knowledge of alienage is not an element of the

offense. United States v. Rizo-Rizo, 1 No. 20-50172, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Oct. 29,

2021). As a result, we reject Cervantes-Ramirez’s contention here and affirm his

conviction.

      AFFIRMED.

1
 The parties jointly moved to consolidate the cases for argument because they
“raise[d] identical legal issues,” and the briefs filed by Cervantes-Ramirez and
Rizo-Rizo advanced identical arguments.

                                         2