United States of America v. Rigoberto Campos-Atrisco

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RIGOBERTO CAMPOS-ATRISCO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50263
D.C. Nos.
3:19-mj-24683-KSC-BAS-1
3:19-mj-24683-KSC-BAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 21, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, NGUYEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Rigoberto Campos-Atrisco appeals from a district court order
denying his appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision and affirming his conviction
and sentence for attempted improper entry as a noncitizen, 8 U.S.C.§ 1325(a)(1).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are
FILED
JUL 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it
here. We affirm the district court’s decision.
1. The record does not support that the magistrate judge impermissibly
shifted the burden of proof to Campos-Atrisco. While the magistrate judge made
certain concerning statements, those statements do not prove that the judge
improperly shifted the burden when “[r]ead in the context of the entire trial.”
United States v. Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149, 1155–57 (9th Cir. 2001); see United
States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Campos-Atrisco argues that his conviction was unlawful because
Congress enacted § 1325 to discriminate against Mexicans and other Central and
South Americans. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429
U.S. 252 (1977). But Campos-Atrisco relies on the legislative history of the 1929
Immigration Act to show a discriminatory purpose for § 1325, and this Court has
held that any discriminatory purpose motivating the 1929 Act did not “taint” the
current version of the statute from 1952. United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th
1133, 1150–51 (9th Cir. 2023). Therefore, this argument is foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --