United States v. Faustino Ngay
708 F. App'x 192
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Faustino Ngay, an Angolan citizen, was convicted by a jury of two counts under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C) for actions designed to prevent or hamper his removal pursuant to a final order.
- Ngay does not dispute he was removable and subject to a final order to Angola; he also does not dispute his actions were knowing.
- On two attempted removals, Ngay loudly declared he would not go, physically resisted deportation officers (stiffening legs, thrashing, hitting his head, attempting to drop his pants), and was disruptive in TSA screening areas.
- Airline personnel and TSA refused to allow Ngay to board because of his screaming and disruptive conduct; deportation officers had escorted him to less public screening areas but he remained unmanageable.
- ICE notified Ngay after each failed removal attempt that his conduct violated § 1253(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Ngay hampered or intended to hamper removal under §1253(a)(1)(C) | Ngay argued airline refusal to board, not his conduct, was the cause of non-removal | Government argued Ngay’s declarations, physical resistance, and disruptive conduct deliberately prevented removal | Jury verdict upheld; evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find Ngay acted with purpose to prevent or hamper removal |
| Whether case presents live controversy despite Ngay’s removal | Ngay’s conviction might be moot because he was removed | Government noted collateral consequences (reentry) keep controversy live | Court held appeal presents a live case or controversy due to potential adverse consequences |
| Standard of review for preserved sufficiency challenge | Ngay urged de novo review of sufficiency | Government relied on standard deferring to jury if any rational trier could convict | Court applied de novo review but evaluated evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and affirmed |
| Need to prove mens rea beyond knowing conduct | Ngay suggested intent element not satisfied | Government pointed to knowing, purposeful conduct as proof of intent | Court accepted that knowing conduct and surrounding facts supported conviction; did not disturb jury’s intent finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (collateral consequences can prevent mootness of a criminal conviction challenge)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (live controversy principles and collateral consequences)
- United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (de novo review for preserved sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Churchwell, 807 F.3d 107 (5th Cir. 2015) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict standard)
- United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 1999) (jury may choose among reasonable constructions of evidence)