From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 12, 1976
534 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1976)

Summary

finding direct and substantial relationship where defendant was paid to transport illegal aliens already illegally within the country from California to Washington so aliens could find employment

Summary of this case from United States v. Cruz-Grijalva

Opinion

No. 75-3497.

April 13, 1976. Rehearing Denied May 12, 1976.

Richard T. Griffin, Griffin, Griffin Jackson, Pasadena, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Douglas F. Graham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Before: WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, District Judge.

Honorable Francis C. Whelan, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.


OPINION


In a trial to the court on stipulated facts, appellant was convicted on two of five counts of transporting illegal aliens. The aliens had crossed the border from Mexico without inspection or detection, then were driven from California to Washington by appellant. They paid him for their transportation, and appellant knew they were in the country illegally and had entered within the past three years.

Appellant argues that the statute [ 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)] is unconstitutionally vague. The claim is frivolous. United States v. Sanchez-Mata, 429 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1970).

Next, he contends that the statute was not intended to apply to those who transport aliens, already illegally within the country, to an area where there are employment opportunities. This, too, lacks merit. To convict under the statute, the government need prove only that (1) appellant transported an alien within the United States, (2) the alien had not been lawfully admitted or was not lawfully entitled to enter, (3) this was known to appellant, (4) he knew the alien's last entry was within three years, and (5) appellant acted willfully in furtherance of the alien's violation of the law.

That the alien's ultimate purpose, to find work, was a lawful one does not provide a defense to one whose guilt has been established under the foregoing five elements. United States v. Acosta de Evans, 531 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1976).

Appellant's contention that it was arbitrary and capricious to specifically exempt the employers of illegal aliens from the reach of the statute, even if accepted, does him no good. The proviso exempting employers applies only to the offense of harboring. Appellant was convicted of transporting illegal aliens. Thus, even if his contention were correct, he does not benefit from it. Since the alleged error is not being applied to appellant's detriment, he may not be heard to complain of it. Herrara v. United States, 208 F.2d 215, 217-18 (9th Cir. 1953).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 12, 1976
534 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1976)

finding direct and substantial relationship where defendant was paid to transport illegal aliens already illegally within the country from California to Washington so aliens could find employment

Summary of this case from United States v. Cruz-Grijalva

In United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, 534 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1976), the facts to which the parties had stipulated were that "aliens had crossed the border from Mexico without inspection or detection, [and] then were driven from California to Washington by appellant," that the aliens paid the appellant for transporting them, and that the appellant knew his passengers were in the United States illegally. Id.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hernandez-Guardado

In United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, 534 F.2d 1353, 1354 (9th Cir. 1976) the Ninth Circuit read what is now section 1324(a)(1)(B) as being composed of five elements.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. 1982 Ford Pick-Up

In United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, 534 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1976) and Herrera v. United States, 208 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1953) cert. denied, 347 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 529, 98 L.Ed. 1080 (1954), this court addressed itself to such a contention and found no constitutional infirmity on the ground of vagueness.

Summary of this case from United States v. Moreno
Case details for

United States v. Gonzalez-Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HILARIO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 12, 1976

Citations

534 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1976)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Santana-Camacho

Knowledge by a defendant that the alien he is transporting was illegally in the United States and that the…

United States v. Shaddix

To support a conviction under section 1324(a)(2), the government must prove the following five elements: (1)…