United States of America v. Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50275
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50027
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2011
Pasadena, California
FILED
DEC 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for attempted reentry after
deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He claims that the district court
precluded him from presenting a defense that he had a good faith belief that
Uniform Commercial Code documents filed with the California Secretary of State
gave him a legal right to enter the United States. We affirm.
The district court did not preclude the defense from presenting evidence or
arguing a good faith defense in closing. Rather, it advised defense counsel that it
would give a jury instruction explaining that the UCC governs commercial
transactions, not immigration law, if defense counsel argued the applicability of the
UCC in closing argument. Such an instruction would have been a correct
statement of the law. Defense counsel then chose not to make the argument. Our
decision in United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005), does not
control this case, because in Smith-Baltiher, the defendant introduced evidence of
his mother's United States citizenship. Id. at 922 & n.8. In contrast, here, as the
district court found, Mr. Hernandez proffered “no evidence” that he had a good
faith belief that the documents he presented had “any force or effect on his ability
to enter the United States.”
Because the jury instructions given adequately covered specific intent as
required by United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

Appellee's motion to permit argument by telephone on December 6, 2011, is1
GRANTED.
2000) (en banc), Hernandez-Ramirez was not entitled to any additional “good
faith” jury instruction. United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED .1

-- 3 of 3 --