United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1995 · 2 courts · …in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal under section 1326. ✓
20 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Venegas-Garcia (ca9, 2005-07-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Venegas-Garcia
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
See United States v. Leon-Leon, 35 F.3d 1428, 1432-33 (9th Cir.1994) (green card); United States v. RamosQuirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir.1991) (employment authorization card).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alfredo Gracidas-Ulibarry (2×)
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
S 1326 ." United States v. Ayala, 35 F.3d 423, 426 (9th Cir. 1994) (considering "found in" prong); see also United States v. Ortiz-Villegas, 49 F.3d 1435, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing "our longstanding rule that violation of S 1326 requires only a general intent to reenter the United States"); United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir. 1991) (repeating that "there is nothing in the statute to suggest that specific intent is an element of the offense"). 3 Only general intent is required. 4 16 It is clear that an alien who has been deported and voluntarily reenters the Uni…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan GUTIERREZ-ALBA, AKA Oscar Cardona-Elias, Defendant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
This court held that “[t]he fact that Ramos obtained Special Agricultural Worker status after his return to the United States is in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal under section 1326.” Id. at 163 (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. R. Gonzalez-Chavez
8th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Gonzalez-Chavez, however, does not advance, nor does the evidence support, such an argument here. -5- permission to reenter the United States based on possession of a green card); United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (holding that defendant's procurement of special agricultural worker status subsequent to "his return to the United States is in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramon Gonzalez-Chavez
8th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Accordingly, evidence of specific intent is irrelevant to an action under § 1326, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by so finding and by prohibiting Gonzalez-Chavez from presenting evidence of his alleged good faith belief that he could lawfully reenter the United States. 2 See United States v. Leon-Leon, 35 F.3d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying admission of evidence concerning defendant’s reasonable belief that he had permission to reenter the United States based on possession of a green card); United States v.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Reyes Medina
1st Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Ayala, 35 F.3d 423, 426 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir. 1991)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Miguel Preciado-Hernandez
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir.1991) (specific intent is not an element of the offense defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ); Pena-Cabanillas, 394 F.2d at 790 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Guiterrez-Alba (2×)
D. Haw. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See, i.e., United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162 (9th Cir.1991) (special agricultural worker status allowing defendant temporary residence not defense to prosecution for re-entry after deportation).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jose Manuel Leon-Leon (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir.1991) ("[T]here is nothing in the statute to suggest that specific intent is an element of the offense."); United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir.1972) (The alien's "guilt did not depend upon a showing that he knew he was not to reenter without permission.").
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jose Luis Ayala, AKA Jose Ayala-Giron AKA Jose Luis Ayalay AKA Oscar Jiron AKA Jose Linares AKA Luis Esquivel
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Ramos-Quirarte, 935 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir.1991) (specific intent is not an element of a § 1326 offense).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Arturo RAMOS-QUIRARTE
No. 90-30245.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 6, 1991.
935 F.2d 162
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10307
1991 WL 93264
J. Jarrette Sandlin, Yakima, Wash., for defendant-appellant., Robert A. Ellis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Yakima, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Lew, Scannlain, Wright.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on May 15, 1991 is hereby designated a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Arturo Ramos-Quirarte appeals from his conviction for unlawful re-entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that (a) his possession of an Employment Authorization Card rendered him immune from prosecution for this offense during the effective dates of that card, and (b) the district court erred in declining to allow him to present evidence of his intent to obey the law. Both contentions are facially merit-less.

Section 1326 provides in pertinent part:

[A]ny alien who—
(1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously excluded and deported, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act, shall be guilty of a felony....

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (1988). The fact that Ramos obtained Special Agricultural Worker status after his return to the United States is in no way a defense to the charge that his return itself was illegal under section 1326, and Ramos has not cited a single case that suggests otherwise.

Further, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that specific intent is an element of the offense. Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 788-90 (9th Cir.1968).

AFFIRMED.