United States v. Sariles
645 F.3d 315
5th Cir.2011Background
- Sariles was stopped at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry (Nov. 13, 2009) with 97.3 kilograms of marijuana in a van.
- The Government charged him with importation of fifty kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more.
- Sariles claimed he acted under the public authority of Deputy Kevin Roberts of the Reeves County Sheriff's Department.
- Prior to the arrest, Roberts had stopped Sariles twice and obtained narcotics-trafficking information; Sariles says an oral agreement existed to avoid Reeves County charges by providing information, while he believed Roberts wanted him to deliver a load.
- The district court ruled Rule 12.3 requires actual authority for the public authority defense and that Sariles could not present the defense; Sariles proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts.
- The court found Sariles guilty on both counts and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 51 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public authority requires actual authority | Sariles (plaintiff) argues Rule 12.3 allows reliance on apparent authority. | Sariles contends the defense can rely on apparent authority due to believed exercise of public authority. | Actual authority required; defense unavailable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 1999) (public authority defense requires actual authority)
- United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2001) (apparent authority not sufficient for public authority defense)
- United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1994) (reliance on apparent authority not a defense)
- United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984) (mistake of law concept for apparent authority)
- United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1996) (public authority defense when engaged in covert activity by government official)
- United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995) (CIA authority cannot authorize federal drug law violations)