United States of America v. Efrain Cervantes-Ramirez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EFRAIN CERVANTES-RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50176
D.C. No.
3:19-mj-23221-FAG-H-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 3, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Efrain Cervantes-Ramirez appeals the district court’s decision that
affirmed the magistrate judge’s acceptance of his guilty plea to the crime of
attempted illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Cervantes-Ramirez
claimed knowledge of alienage was an element of that offense. The magistrate judge
rejected Cervantes-Ramirez’s contention and so did not recite knowledge of alienage
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
OCT 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
as an element of the offense during the plea colloquy. Cervantes-Ramirez
nonetheless entered a guilty plea and then appealed to the district court, which also
rejected his contention. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to
consider Cervantes-Ramirez’s appeal of those decisions, and we affirm.
In a case consolidated for argument with this one, we held that 8 U.S.C. §
1325(a) is a regulatory offense, and knowledge of alienage is not an element of the
offense. United States v. Rizo-Rizo, 1 No. 20-50172, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Oct. 29,
2021). As a result, we reject Cervantes-Ramirez’s contention here and affirm his
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
1 The parties jointly moved to consolidate the cases for argument because they
“raise[d] identical legal issues,” and the briefs filed by Cervantes-Ramirez and
Rizo-Rizo advanced identical arguments.

-- 2 of 2 --