Court Opinion

ID: 9939886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 01:00:29.485681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:05.738096
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988       Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/12/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                               ____________

                                No. 22-30821
                               ____________

   United States of America,

                                                          Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                     versus

   Evaristo Contreras Silva,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 5:22-CR-50-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Smith, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:
         A jury convicted Evaristo Contreras Silva, a citizen of Mexico, of
   possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   § 922(g)(5), after he admitted at trial that he possessed a firearm and was
   unlawfully in the United States. He appeals his conviction, contending the
   Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he was
   unlawfully in the United States when he possessed the firearm in question.
   We affirm.
Case: 22-30821      Document: 00517062988          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

                                         I.
                                         A.
          Much of the evidence in this case is uncontroverted.          At trial,
   Contreras Silva admitted that he illegally came into the United States for the
   first time in 1998 or 1999. In 1999, he was arrested along the Texas-Mexico
   border but voluntarily returned to Mexico. It appears his most recent
   unlawful re-entry was in June 2008.
          In May 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained
   him, and he was “charged . . . with being illegally in the United States.”
   While in custody, Contreras Silva was informed by DHS that he was in the
   United States illegally. He also received an I-94 Form at the time of his
   arrest. Contreras Silva’s I-94 Form states:
          You are required to retain this permit in your possession and to
          surrender it to the transportation line at the time of your
          departure unless you depart over the land border of the United
          States in which case you must surrender it to a Canadian
          immigration officer on the Canadian border, or to a United
          States immigration officer o[n] the Mexican border.

   Contreras Silva received an immigration bond and was released from custody
   in August 2018, approximately three months after his arrest. His bond
   conditions required that he not be arrested again and that he not drive
   without a driver’s license.
          Since his arrest, Contreras Silva has filed various applications to
   change his immigration status, including two applications, in 2018 and 2020,
   for “Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain
   Nonpermanent Residents.” He also completed an “Application for Asylum

                                         2
Case: 22-30821       Document: 00517062988             Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                        No. 22-30821

   and for Withholding of Removal.”1 In these applications, he admitted that
   he entered the United States without inspection and without admission. His
   applications also include a request for review of his immigration status by an
   immigration judge. A hearing on his various applications was continued to
   January 2023.
           On February 2, 2022, Contreras Silva’s pregnant wife called police,
   alleging he punched and kicked her and threatened to shoot her in the
   stomach. Law enforcement officers came to Contreras Silva’s home to
   investigate the call and asked Contreras Silva for identification. Contreras
   Silva walked over to his truck with the officers, unlocked the door, and
   opened the middle console. One officer noticed a gun in the console.
   Contreras Silva admitted he possessed a firearm and did not try to hide the
   gun from the officers. Two weeks later, law enforcement officers obtained a
   search warrant for Contreras Silva’s truck, where they found the loaded
   firearm. A search of his residence yielded several rounds of ammunition. He
   was charged with possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in violation of
   18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) and proceeded to trial.
                                             B.
          Notwithstanding these uncontroverted facts, Contreras Silva testified
   at trial that he believed he was lawfully in the United States at the time he
   possessed the firearm, based on the I-94 Form he received from DHS and his
   interactions with immigration officials. The thrust of Contreras Silva’s
   testimony was that the I-94 Form he received at the time of his arrest was a
   “permit” given to him “to be legally [in the United States] until [his] case
   [was] done.” He testified that this belief stemmed from the I-94 Form’s

          _____________________
           1
            The date on the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal is either
   blocked out or not contained in the document.

                                              3
Case: 22-30821        Document: 00517062988        Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

   wording that Contreras Silva was “required to retain this permit in [his]
   possession . . . .” (emphasis added). For corroboration, he pointed to the
   testimony of Department of Homeland Security deportation officer Marlowe
   Spellman, who testified at trial that immigrants receive an I-94 Form when
   they “legally enter the United States. It gives you the reason you are
   admitted, and it also gives you the length of time you’re allowed to stay.”
          Contreras Silva also testified that other interactions support his belief
   that he was lawfully present in the United States: conversations with an
   attorney while in custody in 2018; adherence to his bond conditions; and
   submitting his biometrics in response to DHS notices. Moreover, he stated
   that when he was submitting his biometrics, he was told that he would receive
   a “green card” and may not need to return to court in 2023. Thus,
   Contreras Silva asserted that even though he unlawfully entered the United
   States, he did not know he was unlawfully present in the United States after
   receiving the I-94 Form and because of various interactions after he left DHS
   custody in 2018.
          However, Contreras Silva admitted that he received “notices to
   appear” that “didn’t give [him] rights to citizenship or any rights” and
   expressly required him to submit biometrics. Indeed, the Government
   introduced one such notice sent to Contreras Silva, a Form I-797C “Notice
   of Action,” which is sent to a petitioner to provide status updates on
   immigration applications.     The top of the notice conspicuously states,
   “THIS NOTICE DOES NOT GRANT ANY IMMIGRATION STATUS
   OR BENEFIT.” And Contreras Silva conceded, during opening argument,
   that despite his stated belief, he was in the United States unlawfully.
          Ultimately, the jury convicted Contreras Silva.         He moved for
   judgment of acquittal three times: after the Government’s case-in-chief,
   after the defense rested, and after the verdict. At base, these motions urged

                                          4
Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988           Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

   that the Government failed to provide sufficient evidence to “contradict[]
   the reasonableness of Mr. Contreras [Silva’s] belief or the truthfulness of
   [his] testimony,” and thus failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
   Contreras Silva knew he was in the United States illegally. The district court
   overruled his motions, and Contreras Silva now appeals, raising the same
   argument.
                                        II.
          Because Contreras Silva moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end
   of the Government’s case-in-chief and at the close of trial, he properly
   preserved his sufficiency of the evidence argument. See United States v.
   Danhach, 815 F.3d 228, 235 (5th Cir. 2016). We therefore review de novo the
   district court’s denial of his motions. Id.; United States v. Buluc, 930 F.3d
   383, 387 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521, 522
   (5th Cir. 1995)). “In doing so, we ask ‘whether a reasonable jury could
   conclude that the evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to
   the [G]overnment, established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
   doubt.’” Buluc, 930 F.3d at 387 (quoting United States v. Duncan, 164 F.3d
   239, 242 (5th Cir. 1999)).
                                       III.
          At trial, the Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable
   doubt that at the time he possessed the firearm and ammunition, Contreras
   Silva knew he was an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States. See
   Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Contreras Silva argues that
   the Government failed to offer evidence sufficient to prove he had the
   requisite knowledge.
          Specifically, Rehaif requires that in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.
   § 922(g), the Government must prove that a “defendant knew he possessed
   a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons

                                         5
Case: 22-30821         Document: 00517062988               Page: 6      Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                          No. 22-30821

   barred from possessing a firearm.” Id. at 2200 (emphasis added). The Court
   reasoned that “possession of a gun can be entirely innocent . . . . It is
   therefore the defendant’s status, and not his conduct alone, that makes the
   difference.” Id. at 2197 (internal citations omitted). The Court determined
   that requiring proof of knowledge as to both possession and status under
   § 922(g) “helps advance the purpose of scienter, for it helps to separate
   wrongful from innocent acts.” Id.2
           On appeal, Contreras Silva repeats his contentions that he did not
   know he was in the United Status unlawfully and that the Government failed
   to produce evidence to the contrary. More precisely, Contreras Silva asserts:
           [H]e believed he was legally in the United States from the time
           he was released from immigration custody until the
           immigration judge ruled on his applications for asylum and for
           withholding of removal and for cancellation of removal and
           adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents.

   He substantiates this belief with the same support he offered during trial: the
   I-94 Form’s “permit” language; “advice from his immigration attorneys
   while he was in immigration custody”; Spellman’s testimony; his adherence
   to his bond conditions; and the various applications he submitted to change
   his unlawful status after his arrest. He also notes that he “possessed the
   firearm and ammunition openly and admittedly while he thought he had a
   permit that made his continued presence in the United States lawful.” He
   contends that, by contrast, “[t]he Government presented no evidence that

           _____________________
           2
             Hamid Rehaif, the petitioner in Rehaif, was prosecuted for “possessing firearms
   as an alien unlawfully in the United States, in violation of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g).” Id. at
   2194. While the Court “express[ed] no view . . . about what precisely the Government
   must prove to establish a defendant’s knowledge of status in respect to other § 922(g)
   provisions,” id. at 2200, because this case concerns the same fact pattern as in Rehaif, i.e.,
   an unlawful alien possessing a firearm, we need not extrapolate here.

                                                 6
Case: 22-30821      Document: 00517062988           Page: 7   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

   contradicted the reasonableness of [his] belief or the truthfulness of [his]
   testimony” and thus “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that . . . he
   knew he was an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States” when
   possessing the firearm.
          But, as the Government argues in response, there was a plethora of
   evidence to rebut Contreras Silva’s assertion that he believed he was in the
   United States lawfully. Reviewing this evidence in the light most favorable
   to the Government as the prevailing party, we agree that a reasonable jury
   could (and did) determine that Contreras Silva knew he was unlawfully in the
   United States.
          Contreras Silva conceded that he entered the country unlawfully
   without inspection or admission sometime in 2008 (and had done so before
   that time). In May 2018, DHS detained him, informed him that DHS
   considered him unlawfully present, and placed him in removal proceedings.
   It was on the day of his arrest that he received the I-94 Form “permit,” on
   which he stakes much of his case—but he remained in custody for three
   months after receiving it, belying the notion that the form meant he was in
   the country lawfully. Similarly, paperwork for his bond informed him that
   the Government had charged him with being “unlawfully in the United
   States.”   And as late as 2020, Contreras Silva himself completed an
   application for “Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for
   Certain Nonpermanent Residents,” on which he stated that he had not been
   inspected at the border or admitted into the United States. Finally, as the
   Government points out, there is the “common-sense inference of knowledge
   stemming from Contreras Silva’s own admission that he knew his
   applications for a change in immigration status were still pending at the time
   he possessed the firearm.” Taken together, a jury could rely on this evidence
   to find that Contreras Silva had the requisite knowledge of his unlawful status
   at the time he possessed the firearm at issue.

                                         7
Case: 22-30821        Document: 00517062988               Page: 8      Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                           No. 22-30821

           In short, Contreras Silva’s reliance on the I-94 Form, Spellman’s
   testimony about its import, and his immigration bond is misplaced. While
   the evidence may have supported putting the question of his knowledge to
   the jury, neither the I-94 Form, Spellman’s testimony that an alien receives
   an I-94 Form upon lawful entry, nor Contreras Silva’s release from custody
   pending his immigration proceedings undercuts the Government’s argument
   that Contreras Silva knew that his status was never changed from unlawful to
   lawful.3 Put differently, the evidence in Contreras Silva’s favor was sufficient
   to create a triable issue; it was not so definitive to allow that issue to be taken
   from the jury via a judgment of acquittal.
                                       *        *         *
           The Government provided sufficient evidence under Rehaif for a
   reasonable jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Contreras Silva knew
   he was in the United States unlawfully when he possessed a firearm. That
   there was evidence pointing in the other direction does not in itself justify a
   judgment of acquittal. The jury weighed the evidence, including Contreras
   Silva’s testimony, and concluded that he knew he was in the United States
   unlawfully. The jury’s verdict was not unreasonable or based on insufficient
   evidence. Therefore, Contreras Silva’s conviction is
                                                                            AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           3
            Contreras Silva interposes that his position is bolstered because he possessed the
   “firearm and ammunition openly and admittedly.” This argument does not sustain his
   position. First, there is testimony that a law enforcement officer saw the gun and asked
   about it—not that Contreras Silva openly disclosed it. Even discounting that evidence, the
   jury was still presented with evidence on both sides of the ledger, and it was free to weigh
   both evidence and witness credibility in reaching its verdict.

                                                8
Case: 22-30821      Document: 00517062988              Page: 9   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                        No. 22-30821

   James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge, dissenting:
          I disagree with the majority that there was sufficient evidence to
   support the jury’s finding that Evaristo Contreras Silva (Contreras) knew he
   was in the United States unlawfully when he possessed a firearm. Because I
   would reverse and remand, I respectfully dissent.
          As stated by the majority, Contreras is a citizen of Mexico who has
   previously crossed the border unlawfully. In 2018, the Department of
   Homeland Security obtained an immigration arrest warrant for Contreras
   and initiated removal proceedings. As a result, Contreras filed various
   applications for cancellation of removal, adjustment of immigration status
   and asylum. He also obtained an immigration bond pending the adjudication
   of his petitions. The order granting bond included only two conditions, “(1)
   No arrests; (2) No driving without a valid driver’s license,” and said nothing
   in reference to possessing a firearm. Contreras’ immigration case was still
   pending at the time of appeal.
          Contreras and his wife were involved in a domestic dispute in
   February of 2022. On February 2, Deputy Brian Bell and Sergeant Michael
   Lombardino with the Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office met with Contreras at
   his home in Haughton, Louisiana. Contreras admitted to officers that he had
   a gun in the console of his truck.
          Deputies subsequently obtained a warrant and arrested Contreras at
   home on February 16 for the previous domestic abuse battery. Presumably,
   deputies notified the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
   (ATF) that Contreras had a firearm in his truck. ATF agents obtained a
   search warrant for Contreras’ truck where they found a Hi-Point 9mm Luger
   pistol loaded with seven rounds of ammunition. Additional ammunition was
   found inside the home.

                                             9
Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988           Page: 10   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

          An immigration record check indicated that Contreras was unlawfully
   present in the United States. On March 1, 2022, Contreras was transferred
   to federal custody for this case. The following week, Contreras was indicted
   in the Western District of Louisiana on a single count of possession of a
   firearm and ammunition by an illegal noncitizen in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
   922(g)(5).
          Contreras went to trial later that year. Contreras unsuccessfully
   moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case and
   at the end of the trial. The jury convicted Contreras on August 16, 2022.
   The district court sentenced Contreras on December 13, 2022, to fifteen
   months imprisonment, consecutive to any sentence he may receive in the
   pending state domestic abuse battery case. Contreras then filed this appeal.
          Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, it is illegal for a noncitizen who is unlawfully
   in the United States “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce,
   or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
   any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
   interstate or foreign commerce.”       18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).      A separate
   provision states that anyone who “knowingly” violates this section shall be
   fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).
          The parties here stipulated to facts establishing all but one element of
   the offense –whether Contreras knew he was in the United States unlawfully
   when he possessed the firearm. Contreras asserts that he believed he was
   legally in the United States when he possessed the firearm and ammunition.
   His belief was based on advice from his lawyers and the I-94 Form given to
   him by the government when he was released on bond pending the resolution
   of his immigration matters. As quoted previously by the majority, the I-94
   clearly states that it is a “permit” to be in the United States. Contreras also

                                         10
Case: 22-30821      Document: 00517062988            Page: 11    Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                      No. 22-30821

   asserts that the government failed to offer sufficient evidence in opposition
   to his testimony and evidence.
           The Supreme Court considered the scope of the word “knowingly”
   in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). In that case, Hamid Rehaif
   entered the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa to attend a
   university. Id. at 2194. Rehaif received poor grades and was dismissed from
   the school, which told him that his immigration status would be terminated
   unless he transferred to a different school or left the United States. Id. Rehaif
   did not do either. The government later discovered that he had visited a
   firing range for target practice and prosecuted him for being a noncitizen
   unlawfully in the country and in possession of firearms. At the close of
   Rehaif’s trial, the judge instructed the jury that the government was not
   required to prove that Rehaif knew he was unlawfully in the United States.
   The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court
   granted certiorari and reversed, saying: “We hold that the word ‘knowingly’
   applies both to the defendant’s conduct and to the defendant’s status. To
   convict a defendant, the Government therefore must show that the defendant
   knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status
   when he possessed it.” Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. at 2194. In so doing, the Court also
   said:
           [O]ur reading of § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2) is consistent with a
           basic principle that underlies the criminal law, namely, the
           importance of showing what Blackstone called “a vicious will.”
           . . . As this Court has explained, the understanding that an
           injury is criminal only if inflicted knowingly “is as universal and
           persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the
           human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal
           individual to choose between good and evil.”
   Id. at 2196 (internal citations omitted).

                                           11
Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988            Page: 12    Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                     No. 22-30821

          The government asserts that Contreras was repeatedly informed that
   his “unlawful” immigration status had not changed. However, this assertion
   appears to be another way of saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse, an
   argument that the Supreme Court also addressed in Rehaif, saying:
                 This maxim, however, normally applies where a
          defendant has the requisite mental state in respect to the
          elements of the crime but claims to be “unaware of the
          existence of a statute proscribing his conduct.” . . . In contrast,
          the maxim does not normally apply where a defendant “has a
          mistaken impression concerning the legal effect of some
          collateral matter and that mistake results in his
          misunderstanding the full significance of his conduct,” thereby
          negating an element of the offense.
   Id. at 2198 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).
          The Court also referenced its consideration of this distinction in
   Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 420 (1985), a case involving a statute
   imposing criminal liability on the use of food stamps in any unauthorized
   manner where it required the government “to prove that the defendant knew
   that his use of food stamps was unlawful – even though that was a question
   of law.” Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. at 2198. The Court also said:
                 This case is similar. The defendant’s status as an alien
          “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” refers to a legal
          matter, but this legal matter is what the commentators refer to
          as a “collateral” question of law. A defendant who does not
          know that he is an alien “illegally or unlawfully in the United
          States” does not have the guilty state of mind that the statute’s
          language and purposes require.
   Id. at 2198.
          Neither the government nor the majority here point to any evidence
   illustrative of a vicious or evil will. Id. at 2196. While Contreras knew that
   the government was alleging that he was here illegally, he also knew that he

                                          12
Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988            Page: 13   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                     No. 22-30821

   had been granted bond and allowed to stay in the country pending the
   resolution of his immigration matters. Additionally, he was in possession of
   a Form I-94 “permit,” which even the deportation officer from the
   Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
   testified “is what you receive when you legally enter the United States. It
   gives you the reason you are admitted, and it also gives you the length of time
   you’re allowed to stay.” The government dismisses this as “just an inartful
   way of explaining that all foreign nationals found in the United States, legal
   or not, are documented via I-94 once located.” The government also states
   that Contreras “does not dispute that the I-94 had no actual effect on his
   immigration status (only that he thought it did) . . . .”
          The government’s acknowledgement that Contreras “thought it
   did,” undercuts the government’s case. If Contreras thought it did have an
   effect, then he could not have also known that it did not have an effect. This
   goes back to the government’s ignorance of the law argument which the
   Supreme Court said in Rehaif does not apply here where Contreras “has a
   mistaken impression concerning the legal effect of some collateral matter and
   that mistake results in his misunderstanding the full significance of his
   conduct.” Id., 139 S.Ct. at 2198.
          Further, if even the deportation officer believed the I-94 was as he
   described it, then it is in no way a stretch that Contreras would believe the
   same. Additionally, while Contreras knew that he had initially crossed the
   border unlawfully, he also knew that he had since been in the United States
   several years, was married to a U.S. citizen, had a family, worked, paid taxes,
   and had an immigration bond and a “permit” allowing him to stay pending
   resolution of his immigration case. Also, on the DHS Form I-826, Notice of
   Rights and Advisals, Contreras initialed beside the following statement: “I
   request a hearing before the Immigration Court to determine whether I may
   remain in the United States.” He did not initial beside the statement that

                                          13
Case: 22-30821     Document: 00517062988           Page: 14   Date Filed: 02/12/2024

                                    No. 22-30821

   included, “I admit that I am illegally in the United States.” Moreover, he
   did not try to hide the fact that he had the firearm from authorities. All of
   that indicates that Contreras lacked “the guilty state of mind that the
   statute’s language and purposes require.” Id.
          The government had the burden of proof to provide sufficient
   evidence that Contreras knew he was in the category barred from possessing
   a firearm. Even if the jury implicitly deemed Contreras’ testimony that he
   did not know he was in that category as not credible, it in no way makes up
   for the government’s failure to offer evidence that he knew otherwise.
   Instead, the government conceded that Contreras “thought” the I-94
   “permit” had an effect on his immigration status.           That “mistaken
   impression” falls squarely within Rehaif. Id. at 2198.
          For these reasons, I would reverse and remand. Thus, I respectfully
   dissent.

                                         14