*1 is inter- repose. plaintiff interested amount of having a reasonable
ested In contrast to situa- file a claim.
time to at is- estoppel is equitable in which
tions nothing to do
sue, here the defendant delay. plaintiff If the has file, should time to
enough repose.
not be denied
IV “protect impor- of limitations
Statutes certainty, accuracy,
tant social interests
Cada,
gress’s should a that defendants
flects worry about stale claims after
not have to elapsed. has Yet amount of time certain eye to by turning a blind precedent,
our interests, unjustifiably
the defendant’s merely “ar- statutes of limitations as
treats
bitrary obstacles to the vindication example Id. This case is clear
claims.” exten- Socop-Gonzalez’s automatic
of how circumstances, rule, many converts
sion tolling tolling into at will.
equitable
Notwithstanding Socop-Gonzalez decided, specially I concur wrongly
the court’s America, STATES of
UNITED
Plaintiff-Appellee, GARCIA-VILLEGAS,
Defendant-Appellant. States Court of Chavez, CA, for Diego, James M. San 6,May Argued and Submitted appellant. 4, 2009. Manahan, CA, for George Diego, V. appellee. *2 950
gas, a Mexican national without authoriza- tion to in this station, Agent At Border Patrol the biographical entered Garcia’s Villarreal database, fin- information into a took his NOONAN, Before; T. JOHN and informed him of his admin- gerprints, F. DIARMUID O’SCANNLAIN later, rights. Agent istrative little Vil- Judges. Circuit SUSAN proceedings larreal told Garcia the NOONAN; by Judge Opinion against changed, him because he was by Judge Concurrence GRABER. going committing to be tried for a federal crime. He then advised Garcia of his Mi- NOONAN, Judge: rights Spanish. randa Garcia waived (Garcia) Garcia-Villegas appeals rights agreed speak these convict- the Agent Villarreal. ing attempting him of the misdemeanor of oath, Under Garcia declared that he was the in violation of 8 United States born in that he had entered the § 1325. We affirm the conviction U.S.C. approximately States as a child and hold that Garcia’s admission of alien- years ago; that he had left the United corroborated the age was recently; States for the first time that he testimony of who observed Gar- witnesses illegally had reentered the United States climbing cia over the fences from border fences; by climbing the border that this Mexico. was his first into the United States FACTS child; entering country since as a that he entered the United States with the 21, 2008, Gomer, May Sgt. a video On Pomona, California, going intention operator working for the surveillance Cali- where he once resided. Guard, Army fornia National two observed individuals down the north side of primary border fence between Mexico PROCEEDINGS Bor- United States. He notified 11, 2008, On June a bench trial was held Agent Kim activ- der Patrol Andrew of the Anthony Battaglia, Magistrate before J. ity. The two individuals moved towards Judge. magistrate judge found fence, secondary of them against Garcia. The district court af- top hooked a ladder onto the of the fence and steadied the ladder. The second indi- appeals. ladder, climbed the negotiated
vidual
wire,
dropped
concertina
to the north
ANALYSIS
secondary
side of the
fence. He hid be-
min-
hind a bush near the fence. Within
Admissions, postfactum, of the ele
utes,
Kim
Agent
apprehended him. The
the crime with which
ments of
the defen
coyote,
helped
probably
man who’d
charged
dant is
must be corroborated
returned to Mexico.
“substantial
evidence which
would tend to establish the trustworthi
name,
suspect
Kim asked the
Opper
names,
ness
v. Unit
birth,
parents’
place
statements.”
States,
ed
him
S.Ct.
permitting
whether he had documents
So,
prudence,
L.Ed. 101.
the law
suspect
to be in the United States. The
requires
corpus
identified himself as
more evidence of the
Javier Garcia-Ville-
extrajudicial admission of the
dant but also from two independent
licti than the
charged with its commission.
sources. That is sufficient
person
provide
corroboration. We do not
today
decide
case,
In our
Garcia twice admitted
whether mere admission of border cross-
illegal entry by
an alien
the elements of
*3
ing would suffice
confirm an admission
government supple
into this
The
alienage.
of
admissions with the testimo
mented these
objections
Garcia’s
to the Miranda ad-
ny
of one witness who saw Garcia
in Spanish
vice he received
from the
border,
marking the
the fences
agents
unpersuasive:
quibble
are
toas
apprehended
who
translation;
attempt
and an
to apply
hands,
hiding in a bush on the
Juan-Cruz,
United States v. San
314 F.3d
American side. Garcia’s admissions were
(9th Cir.2002),
where in fact that court
proved.
was
guilt
corroborated. His
procedure
endorsed the
that
Villar-
suggested
It
that Garcia could have
is
real followed here. See id. at 389. Garcia
fence-climbing
had some motive
that
argues
also
for the first
time that
depor-
on a
was not based
desire
agents employed
two-step”
“a
process of
tation as an alien. No doubt such a motive
interrogation to avoid Miranda contrary
may
imagined.
imagined
The
motive is
Seibert,
to Missouri v.
not
relevant.
reasonable factfinder
from the fact
that
could infer
Garcia
argument
supported by
Garcia’s
is
no facts
climbed two fences and hid
one bush
by
been waived
not being
that
was conscious that he had no
Garcia
argued before.
by
The admissions made
legal right
the United States.
were,
Garcia before he was Mirandarized
This substantial and
evidence
found, voluntary.
the district court
is sufficient to establish the trustworthi-
Finally,
reject
we
claim
Opper,
ness of Garcia’s statements. See
Garcia’s
that the
identify
without
Owino, Petitioner-Appellant,
alterna
without due consideration
tives,
merely
prelude
or where it is
v.
that commands the
legal
another
issue
NAPOLITANO,* Secretary
rel.
full attention.” V.S. ex
A.O.
panel’s
Security;
Gatos-Saratoga
High
Union
Joint
Los
General;
Jr., Attorney
Eric H. Holder
(9th
Dist,
n. 1
Sch.
484 F.3d
Baker,
Diego
Director of
Robin
Cir.2007) (internal
marks omit
quotation
Immigration
Field Office U.S.
ted).
here:
exception
apply
That
does not
*4
Enforcement;
John A. Gar
Customs
expressly considered
panel
The Hernandez
Officer-In-Charge, Respondents-
zon
mode-of-entry evidence was suffi
whether
Appellees.
not,
cient,
explained
it
held that was
reasoning.
nandez mode-of-entry evidence admitted 23, Argued and Submitted June 2009. defendant. 4, the defen- presented concerning dence mode of was the defendant’s dant’s (noting
own admission. See id. government
that “Hernandez told [the
agent] that he had entered the United by scaling the border fence with
Mexico”). words, in In other Hernandez evidence was not inde- corroboration; instead,
pendent it was
part of the defendant’s admission. contrast, introduced witnesses,
testimony from two one who
saw Defendant scale the fences and anoth- hiding
er who found Defendant in the hands.
bushes with significant
That distinction because
purposes of the corroboration rule are to in- prosecutions based on insufficient
vestigation creating and to avoid incentives in eliciting
for abusive tactics admissions. Illinois,
See Escobedo v. 488- * Security, pursuant Napolitano prede- her is substituted for Chertoff, cessor, 43(c)(2). Secretary R.App. Michael as to Fed.