United States v. Sierra-Ledesma
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendant Sierra-Ledesma was stopped for speeding in Dodge City, Kansas, and detained after authorities learned he had been deported.
- A grand jury indicted him for being found in the United States without authorization after a prior deportation.
- He previously had a 1997 illegal reentry conviction and was deported in 2008; he reentered in 2009 in Kansas.
- Defendant gave a sworn statement to an ICE agent admitting prior deportation and unlawful reentry; he did not seek permission to reenter.
- The district court admitted Defendant’s 1997 illegal reentry conviction under Rule 404(b) and instructed on limited relevance to identity/intent/knowledge.
- Jury found him guilty; he was sentenced to 105 months in prison plus supervised release, with a consecutive 22-month term for related supervised-release violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intent is required for the 'found in' element of §1326(a). | Sierra-Ledesma lacks knowledge requirement; government bears limited intent to reenter. | Knowingly found element requires specific intent beyond general entry intent. | Yes, limited intent to enter suffices; error harmless here. |
| Whether the government proved Defendant was an alien at the time of the offense. | Disputed whether he was a national; government need only show not a national. | Must prove he was not a national; nationality status defeated by evidence. | Sufficient evidence showed Defendant was not a citizen or national at the time. |
| Whether admission of 1997 illegal reentry conviction under Rule 404(b) was reversible error. | Evidence probative of identity/intent; not unduly prejudicial. | Evidence was improper propensity testimony and prejudicial. | Harmless error; overwhelming trial evidence supported conviction. |
| Whether prosecutorial closing remarks were improper and prejudicial. | Remarks were within bounds and supported by evidence. | Closing comments shifted burden and were prejudicial. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez-Enriquez, 842 F.2d 1211 (10th Cir. 1988) (government must prove intent to enter; limited mens rea for 1326)
- Martinez-Morel, 118 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 1997) (found in element mens rea limited to intent to enter)
- Hernandez-Hernandez, 519 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (clarified 'found in' mens rea remains limited to entering intent)
- Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2000) (pattern: general intent to reenter suffices)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (due process requires jury to find all elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for omitted elements)
- Jimenez-Alcala, 353 F.3d 858 (10th Cir. 2003) (national vs. citizen distinction for §1326)
- Ortiz-Villegas, 49 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1995) (intent to be in the United States not required at moment found in some contexts)