United States v. Jhony Antonio Contreras Maradiaga
987 F.3d 1315
11th Cir.2021Background
- Maradiaga used an ICE Order of Supervision to obtain a Florida driver’s license; the Order was scanned and a license issued. DHS/ICE records showed he was never ordered removed and had no genuine Order of Supervision. The Order contained another alien number and release conditions that did not apply to him.
- A grand jury indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) for knowingly possessing and using a forged or fraudulently obtained immigration document.
- At trial Maradiaga testified he received the Order from an "attorney" called "Val," but could not identify Val or provide contact details; he had prior legitimate immigration filings that used his true alien number and stated he was never removed.
- ICE and DHS witnesses testified the Order was fraudulent, that Maradiaga was never ordered removed, and that his A-file and prior filings contradicted the Order.
- The jury convicted him; the district court denied a new-trial motion and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment plus supervised release. Maradiaga appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ICE Order of Supervision is a document covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) | §1546(a)’s "other document" clause covers any document prescribed by statute or regulation as evidence of authorized stay; prior Eleventh Circuit authority treated orders of supervision as covered | Order of supervision is not a document prescribed by statute/regulation as evidence of authorized stay, so §1546(a) does not apply | Affirmed: orders of supervision fall within §1546(a) (Chinchilla controls) |
| Whether the district court’s jury instruction (adding "or employment") constructively amended the indictment | Government: the instruction did not broaden possible bases for conviction; invited-error waiver applies | Maradiaga: additional wording broadened indictment, requiring vacatur | Affirmed: review barred by invited-error doctrine (defense proposed the language); even on plain-error review no prejudice shown |
| Whether prosecutor's closing comments (about the existence of "Val" and vouching for a witness) were prosecutorial misconduct requiring a new trial | Government: comments were permissible argument and conclusions from evidence; any inartful phrasing was not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence | Maradiaga: government misstated evidence by implying Val might not exist and improperly vouched for Officer Diaz | Affirmed: some remarks about "Val" were misleading but not prejudicial in context; government did not impermissibly vouch for Officer Diaz because statements tracked the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review governs forfeited objections)
- United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (applies Olano and discusses plain-error review for constructive amendment claims)
- United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2010) (invited-error doctrine bars appellate review when party proposed instruction)
- United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381 (11th Cir. 1997) (failure to object to closing argument limits review to plain error)
- United States v. Williams, 790 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015) (criminal statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2015) (discusses improper vouching and permissible credibility argument)
- United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398 (11th Cir. 1998) (overwhelming evidence can negate prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct)