United States v. Felix Lemus-Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not err by refusing to give Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 9.8, which applies where a previously removed defendant is “found” in the United States. The government argued only that the defendant “reentered” the United States without permission. The district court properly instructed the jury using corresponding Model Criminal Jury Instruction 9.6, which applies to illegal reentry offenses. To the extent defendant complains that the indictment also charged him with being “found” in the United States, a district court may properly instruct the jury in a manner that narrows the indictment. See United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 , 105 S.Ct. 1811 , 85 L.Ed.2d 99 (1985).

2. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by preventing defendant from introducing expert testimony about the unlikelihood of obtaining asylum from Mexico. Defendant sought to introduce this testimony in response to the prosecution’s questions as to whether he considered legal alternatives to reentering the United States without permission. But defendant testified- that he never investigated any alternatives. Evidence about his likelihood of obtaining…