United States v. Jorge Mariscal

MEMORANDUM

Following a bench trial, Appellant Jorge Mariscal (“Mariscal”) was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), which prohibits an alien from illegally reentering the United States after he previously left the country while an order of removal was outstanding. On appeal, Mariscal argues that the government failed to sufficiently prove his prior physical departure.

Where a party on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” and then determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

Appellant relies heavily on United States v. Arias-Ordonez, 597 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2009), where we held that if the government seeks to rely on a notice of reinstatement to remove an alien, the defendant must have an opportunity to challenge the underlying order of removal. Here, however, Mariscal does not dispute the validity of the underlying 2007 Order of Removal. Therefore, we…