United States v. Jose Castro-Juarez, 16-10280

On May 26, 2015, Border Patrol agents in Nogales, Arizona, located Jose Castro-Juarez hiding about one-half mile north of the U.S.–Mexico border after a camera operator in the Nogales surveillance room reported seeing a person in Green Canyon.
The camera operator testified the camera did not cover the precise area where Green Canyon meets the international border and that he did not see Castro-Juarez cross the border; his memory was vague but he was “pretty certain” he first saw the person just before calling patrol.
Patrol agents apprehended Castro-Juarez in the brush north of the border; surveillance radio transmissions (played at trial) suggested the camera operator initially thought the person might be a fellow agent.
Castro-Juarez was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful reentry after deportation. He argued the government failed to prove he reentered the U.S. free from official restraint (i.e., not under surveillance or custody when crossing).
The district court gave an official-restraint jury instruction (placing burden on the government when evidence of restraint exists) and denied Castro-Juarez’s Rule 29 motion for acquittal after conviction.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and denial of the Rule 29 motion de novo and affirmed, concluding a rational jury could find Castro-Juarez was not under official restraint when he crossed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove reentry free from official restraint	Gov: camera room testimony and radio show surveillance did not capture crossing; evidence supports no restraint	Castro-Juarez: video surveillance at border may have shown he was under official restraint, so evidence insufficient	Affirmed: reasonable juror could find no official restraint; government met its burden
Whether district court erred by giving an "official restraint" jury instruction	Castro-Juarez: instruction resolved factual question against him and undermined prosecution	Gov: instruction properly placed burden on government to prove lack of restraint when evidence suggests restraint	Affirmed: instruction does not resolve facts; it allocates burden; government proved lack of restraint
Whether denial of Rule 29 motion for acquittal was proper	Castro-Juarez: evidence insufficient as a matter of law to sustain conviction	Gov: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational trier could convict beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed: de novo review; evidence sufficient; denial proper
Whether recorded radio transmission and camera operator testimony supported conviction	Castro-Juarez: operator’s vague memory undermines reliability	Gov: transmission and testimony support inference he was first seen north of border, not under surveillance when crossing	Affirmed: jury could credit prosecution’s version

United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Jackson standard applied to sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for conviction based on sufficient evidence)
United States v. Castellanos-Garcia, 270 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2001) (government bears burden to prove lack of official restraint when evidence of restraint exists)
United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522 (9th Cir. 1988) (defendant entitled to jury instruction on defense theory if supported by evidence)