Salazar-Lopez

United States v. Salazar-Lopez

Good Law
252 F. App'x 153
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 24, 2007No. 06-50438California273 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

We address here Manuel Salazar-Lopez’s challenge to his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

After reviewing the record, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Salazar-Lopez was not under official restraint for the entire time that he was within the United States. Agent Garcia testified that Salazar-Lopez was not observed by camera until after seismic sensors within the United States had been triggered; thus he was already in the United States before any observation that could constitute official restraint began. See United States v. Cruz-Escoto, 476 F.3d 1081, 1085-86 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that aliens “who evade government observation while crossing the border are deemed to be free from official restraint, regardless of the distance they travel between entry and arrest”); United States v. Vela-Robles, 397 F.3d 786, 789 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that detection by seismic sensors does not constitute official restraint). While Salazar-Lopez argues that the lack of testimony from the camera operator creates a reasonable doubt as to whether he was under observation from the moment he…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.