UNITED STATES v. REYES RODRIGUEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 19-10422, No. 19-10423

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no plain error in the trial court's refusal to instruct on derivative citizenship and no abuse of discretion in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

Cristobal Reyes-Rodriguez was convicted of illegal reentry as a removed alien and appealed both his conviction and sentence. He argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on derivative citizenship—a potential defense because U.S. citizens cannot be convicted of this crime. However, Reyes-Rodriguez himself testified that he was not a citizen, and he presented no evidence about the timing or circumstances of his father's naturalization that would support a derivative citizenship claim. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decision not to give the instruction.

Reyes-Rodriguez also challenged his sentence, claiming he deserved a two-point reduction for accepting responsibility. The sentencing guidelines generally deny this reduction to defendants who force the government to prove its case at trial and only admit guilt afterward. The trial court properly rejected this request because Reyes-Rodriguez's admission of guilt came only after his conviction and did not constitute meaningful acceptance of responsibility.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether plain error occurred by failing to instruct jury on derivative citizenship defense
Whether trial record contained sufficient evidence of derivative citizenship to require jury instruction
Whether post-trial admission of guilt qualified for sentencing reduction under acceptance of responsibility

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed his jury conviction and sentence for illegal reentry as a removed alien to a federal appellate court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Cristobal Reyes-Rodriguez appeals his jury conviction and sentence for reentry as a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes-Rodriguez was previously convicted of multiple felonies and twice removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Reyes-Rodriguez claims that the district court committed plain error by failing to offer a sua sponte instruction to the jury on derivative citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g). A citizen of the United States is not an alien and therefore cannot be convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3); United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717, 721–22 (9th Cir. 2011). At trial, however, Reyes-Rodriguez himself stated that he was not a citizen of the United States upon questioning by his counsel. While Reyes-Rodriguez did testify that his father had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, he did not offer any evidence about his age at the time of his fathers naturalization or any other information relevant to the derivative citizenship inquiry. The district court therefore did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on derivative citizenship. See United States v. Espinoza-Baza, 647 F.3d 1182, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that no jury instruction required when “the trial record contains nothing more than a mere scintilla of evidence of derivative citizenship”).

Reyes-Rodriguez also claims that the district court erred by refusing to grant him a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As the Application Notes explain, this reduction is generally “not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 2. The district court appropriately found that Reyes-Rodriguezs brief post-trial statement to the court was untimely and did not merit departure from this general rule.

AFFIRMED.