Summary
The Fifth Circuit considered Lazaro Hernandez-Adame’s challenge to his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for illegal reentry. The court held that the district court did not reversibly err by refusing to give Hernandez’s requested jury instruction defining freedom from official restraint, while noting that freedom from official restraint is part of the definition of entry. The court affirmed the conviction and remanded for correction of the district court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court reversibly erred by refusing to instruct the jury that actual re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 requires physical presence in the United States and freedom from official restraint.
- Whether the district court's written judgment required correction because it stated that Hernandez had been convicted of attempted illegal re-entry rather than illegal re-entry.
Holdings
- Freedom from official restraint is part of what defines entry for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the requested instruction that actual re-entry requires physical presence in the United States and freedom from official restraint was a correct statement of Fifth Circuit law.
- The district court did not commit reversible error by refusing the requested official-restraint instruction because the pattern instruction correctly stated the law, substantially covered the relevant issue in the circumstances of this case, and the omission did not seriously impair Hernandez's ability to present his defense.
- The judgment had to be corrected to identify the offense as illegal re-entry rather than attempted illegal re-entry.
Key quotations
“Simply put, “freedom from official restraint” is part of what defines entry for the purpose of this offense.” (14)
“It therefore cannot be said that the absence of the instruction “seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to effectively present [the] defense.”” (16-17)
“Nevertheless, we remind the district courts that the pattern jury instructions can and should be modified as needed to fit the facts of the case before them.” (17)
Factual background
Hernandez, a Mexican citizen who had previously been removed from the United States, crossed from Mexico into the United States in August 2023 without consent to reapply for admission. He crossed a pedestrian turnstile at a port of entry, ran a few steps, surrendered to Customs and Border Protection officers, and stated that he wanted to be arrested so he could address his immigration status. At trial, he did not dispute the underlying facts but argued that he entered the United States to obtain custody rather than to enter illegally.
Procedural history
Hernandez was indicted in the Western District of Texas for attempted illegal re-entry. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of re-entry of a removed alien and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The written judgment incorrectly described the offense as attempted illegal re-entry. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and remanded for correction of that clerical error.
Remand instructions
Remand solely to correct the clerical error in the written judgment by changing the offense from attempted illegal re-entry to illegal re-entry, consistent with the jury's verdict. The conviction is otherwise affirmed.