United States v. Gustavo Dominguez
661 F.3d 1051
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dominguez, a Cuban-born sports agent, organized the smuggling of five Cuban players to the United States to pursue baseball careers; Betancourt-Beltran smuggle preceded this venture, for which Medina was paid, and Dominguez later secured agency contracts for the players.
- The July 2004 failed fast-boat smuggle led to a successful August 2004 drop-off of the five players off Deer Key, Florida; Dominguez and Medina coordinated payments and established a scheme to collect a percentage of the players’ earnings.
- After arrival, the players were housed, trained, and then processed by immigration counsel Humberto Gray; Dominguez accompanied them to apply for asylum and parole, after which the players were paroled and several signed baseball contracts.
- Dominguez was convicted on 21 counts, including conspiracy to smuggle, aiding and abetting etc., and sentenced to five consecutive five-year minimums under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) due to alleged commercial gain.
- The district court later reversed the transporting and harboring counts as insufficiently supported and the appellate court affirmed the conspiracy/attempt/smuggling counts while vacating the others.
- Dominguez’s broader defenses included reliance on Cuban immigration policies (CAA, Wet-Foot/Dry-Foot) and expert immigration testimony, which the court did not allow to be presented at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of transporting and harboring evidence | Dominguez lacked intent to transport/harbor illegals. | Evidence showed he acted to help the players and procured immigration processing. | Transporting and harboring convictions reversed. |
| Whether §1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires criminal intent | Dominguez argues general criminal intent is required. | Court held no general intent required. | Convictions affirmed on conspiracy/attempt/smuggling; holding on intent disputed by concurrence. |
| Admission of Betancourt-Beltran 404(b) evidence | Prior smuggle showed intent and ongoing scheme. | Evidence was probative of intent and part of same scheme. | Admissible under Rule 404(b). |
| Exclusion of CAA/Wet-Foot/Dry-Foot policy & immigration expert | Policy evidence relevant to intent and state of mind. | Policies not relevant to sufficiency and should be admitted. | Exclusion not reversible error for smuggling counts; to the extent it related to other counts, they were reversed on sufficiency. |
| Jury instructions on intent | Jury should be instructed on criminal intent and policy context. | Instructions correctly stated law; no separate willful-intent instruction required. | No reversible error on the smuggling counts; court’s approach maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zayas-Morales, 685 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir.1982) (Mariel refugees case informing mens rea inclusion for §1324 offenses)
- Barajas-Montiel v. United States, 185 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.1999) (holds criminal intent required for §1324(a)(2)(B) offenses)
- Nguyen v. United States, 73 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.1995) (statutory interpretation of §1324; discusses mens rea in context of 1324(a) provisions)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (holds mens rea required for certain statutory schemes like food stamps program)
- United States v. Morissette, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (historical basis for implied mens rea in criminal offenses)