541 F. App'x 678
6th Cir.2013Background
- Lorenzo Carmago-Antonio, a Mexican national, was tried and convicted by a jury for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- At trial, Officer Sean Caywood observed Canadian border agents escorting Carmago-Antonio to the Port Huron, Michigan port of entry.
- Carmago-Antonio told Caywood he had lived in the U.S. for about 15 years, was based in Phoenix where his family lived, and went to Canada because of "tough" Arizona immigration laws.
- Defendant argued his presence in the U.S. after deportation was only due to being brought in by Canadian authorities against his will.
- The district court sentenced him to 27 months imprisonment and two years supervised release; Carmago-Antonio appealed the sufficiency of evidence and the reasonable-doubt jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant entered/was present in the U.S. after deportation | Government: testimony and defendant's admissions show he lived in the U.S. post-deportation | Carmago-Antonio: only evidence of presence was being escorted into the U.S. by Canadian officers against his will | Affirmed — record contains evidence of prior U.S. residence and presence; not a miscarriage of justice |
| Jury instruction on reasonable doubt | Government: instruction as given did not lower burden and was adequate | Carmago-Antonio: instruction omitted "hesitate to act" language from Pattern Instruction and thus was erroneous | Affirmed — instruction, taken as a whole, did not lower burden of proof and no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Tragas v. United States, 727 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard for sufficiency review when no Rule 29 motion)
- Frazier v. United States, 595 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2010) (standards on plain-error review)
- Ambriz-Ambriz v. United States, 586 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding § 1326 conviction on similar facts of prior U.S. residence)
- Binder v. Stegall, 198 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 1999) (reasonable-doubt instruction comparing to a "fair, honest doubt" did not lower burden)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (reasonable-doubt standard and guidance on instruction language)
- Semrau v. United States, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for jury-instruction challenges)
- Newsom v. United States, 452 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2006) (review standard for unobjected-to jury instructions)