FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 09 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50466
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01366-MMA-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID FRANCISCO LAZO-ROMERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant David Francisco Lazo-Romero appeals his conviction
of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm. Even if the delay in
Lazo-Romero’s presentment to the magistrate was unreasonable or unnecessary
under the circumstances of the case, see Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303
(2009); United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009), any
error was harmless. It is less probable than not that such error materially affected
the verdict. United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002).
Even without Lazo-Romero’s post-Miranda, pre-arraignment confession, an
abundance of evidence supported the verdict that Lazo-Romero knowingly and
illegally re-entered the United States. Border Patrol agents discovered Lazo-
Romero three miles north of the border, in a desolate area in rough terrain, at night,
carrying a backpack, and moving north. He attempted to avoid detection by hiding
in brush. Immediately after being discovered, he admitted to being a national of El
Salvador without permission to enter or remain legally in the United States. He
had a lengthy immigration history, which included previous deportation. The
government has met its burden to show a “fair assurance of harmlessness,” and that
any error was harmless. Seschillie, 310 F.3d at 1214 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2