United States v. Miguel Valle

Summary

The Ninth Circuit vacated a sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, holding that the government must prove a non-citizen's continuous presence in the United States by clear and convincing evidence when the resulting sentencing enhancements increase the offense level by more than four and more than double the Guidelines range. The court found that the government failed to meet this heightened burden where it presented no direct evidence of the defendant's whereabouts for thirteen years, and the inference from family ties and prior returns to the United States was insufficient. On remand, the government may not submit new evidence of the defendant's whereabouts because it already had a full opportunity to do so.

Holdings

1. The district court’s legal conclusion that proof of continuous presence was not required was erroneous.
2. The clear and convincing evidence standard applies because the enhancements raised Valle's offense level by significantly more than 4 and far more than doubled his sentencing range.
3. The Government failed to meet its burden because it presented no direct evidence of Valle's whereabouts for the thirteen-year period, and the inference from family ties and pattern of return is insufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Government can establish by clear and convincing evidence a non-citizen’s continuous presence in the United States since the alleged time of reentry without submitting any direct evidence of where the non-citizen was for more than a decade.

Disposition

vacated