Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-02-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. EFRAIN CERVANTES-RAMIREZ
Case Number: 20-50176
Judge: Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
San Francisco, CA - Immigration lawyer represented defendant with a attempted illegal entry charge.
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
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).
Outcome: As a result, we reject Cervantes-Ramirez’s contention here and affirm his
conviction.
AFFIRMED
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: