Herrera

208 F.2d 215 HERRERA, v. UNITED STATES. No. 13733. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 19, 1953. Writ of Certiorari Denied. March 15, 1954. See 74 S.Ct. 529 . Lionel Richman, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Ray H. Kinnison, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Division, Manuel L. Real, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before STEPHENS, HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges. HEALY, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was convicted on three counts of an indictment charging him with the transportation within the United States of aliens, knowing that they were in the United States in violation of law and having reasonable grounds to believe that their entry occurred less than three years prior to the transportation. 1 2 The aliens in question were Mexicans who had clandestinely crossed the border into Southern California. The indictment was predicated on Section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended by Public Law No. 283, approved March 20, 1952, 66 Stat. p. 26, 8 U.S.C.A. § 144 (a)(2) (now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324 (a)(2).) The facts are stipulated, and the conviction is assailed only on grounds having to do with the validity of…

Appellant was convicted on three counts of an indictment charging him with the transportation within the United States of aliens, knowing that they were in the United States in violation of law and having reasonable grounds to believe that their entry occurred less than three years prior to the transportation.

The aliens in question were Mexicans who had clandestinely crossed the border into Southern California. The indictment was predicated on Section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended by Public Law No. 283, approved March 20, 1952, 66 Stat. p. 26, 8 U.S.C.A. § 144 (a) (2) [now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324 (a) (2).] The facts are stipulated, and the conviction is assailed only on grounds having to do with the validity of the statute. The contentions are, first, that the statute is void for vagueness, and second, that it constitutes an arbitrary and capricious form of class legislation.

Public Law 283 is entitled “An Act To assist in preventing aliens from entering or remaining in the United States illegally.” House Report No. 1377, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., indicates that the purpose of the legislation was to “overcome a deficiency in the present law making it an offense to…

I concur. If this were a state law I would have some doubts about a classification which punishes the man who gives a couple of “wetbacks” a ride, and yet entirely excuses those whose employment of such aliens is primarily responsible for the whole Mexican alien problem, But the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 329, 337 , 63 S.Ct. 297 , 87 L.Ed. 304 , and the discrimination here cannot be said to be so arbitrary and injurious in character as to make the statute wanting in due process.