United States v. Espinoza-Baza
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16101
9th Cir.2011Background
- Espinoza-Baza, born in Mexico in 1980, lived in the United States for 19 years before deportation in 2002.
- He illegally reentered the United States after the 2002 deportation and committed additional offenses, leading to a second deportation in February 2005.
- He reentered again after the 2005 deportation and was later charged in October 2008 with illegal entry after deportation and, in a superseding indictment, two counts of illegal reentry (2002 and 2005).
- Trial in May 2009 focused on alienage; government proved he was Mexican-born and that his parents were born in Mexico, via two sworn confessions.
- Espinoza-Baza sought to introduce derivative-citizenship evidence through maternal grandfather and aunts; district court excluded it under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) and Rule 403, and denied a derivative-citizenship jury instruction; he was sentenced to 96 months after a downward variance.
- On appeal, Espinoza-Baza contends exclusion of derivative-citizenship evidence, failure to give a derivative-citizenship instruction, and that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether derivative citizenship evidence was properly excluded | Espinoza-Baza argues evidence of grandfather's citizenship is legally relevant to derivative citizenship. | Espinoza-Baza argues the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by excluding probative derivative-citizenship evidence. | District court did not abuse discretion; probative value was marginal and outweighed by risk of confusion. |
| Whether the district court must instruct on derivative citizenship | Espinoza-Baza contends he presented a viable derivative-citizenship theory needing instruction. | Espinoza-Baza asserts the court should give a defense instruction based on the evidence. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence lacked adequate foundation for a jury instruction. |
| Whether counts were misgrouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 instead of grouping under § 3D1.2 | Espinoza-Baza claims counts should be grouped to lower the guidelines range. | Government and court found counts not groupable under § 3D1.2, allowing a multiple-count enhancement. | Counts were not grouped; no error in applying § 3D1.4 enhancement. |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable | Espinoza-Baza argues the 96-month sentence miscalculates the guidelines range. | Court correctly calculated the range and imposed a downward variance within discretion. | Sentence procedurally reasonable. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable | Espinoza-Baza argues the sentence is greater than necessary to achieve § 3553(a) goals. | Court acted with proper consideration of § 3553(a) factors given criminal history and need for deterrence. | Sentence substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing; probative value vs. prejudice)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (evidentiary exclusion to prevent speculation)
- Sandoval-Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 2011) (derivative citizenship evidence relevant to alienage post-Sandoval)
- Torres-Flores, 502 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2007) (mere scintilla not sufficient for derivative-citizenship instruction)
- Gomez-Osorio, 957 F.2d 636 (9th Cir. 1992) (entitlement to instruction hinges on evidentiary foundation)
- Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005) (government must prove alienage beyond reasonable doubt)
- Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 403 deference to district court's evidentiary rulings)
- Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (abbreviated focus on procedural reasonableness and guideline range)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness review)
- Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (totality of circumstances; non-guidelines sentences reviewed for reasonableness)
- Bahena-Guifarro, 324 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2003) (grouping illegal reentry counts; separate episodes not one composite harm)
- United States v. Velasques-Vela, 443 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1971) (evidence probative value is minimal when not linked to elements)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to Rule 403 balancing decisions)