FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50279
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00085-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSE GALLEGOS-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 3, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, SILER, ** and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Gallegos-Lopez appeals his jury conviction for two counts of bringing
illegal aliens to the United States for financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
§ 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), two counts of harboring illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), and for aiding and abetting the same crimes.
Gallegos-Lopez first contends the district court erred when it gave the jury
an instruction with a definition of the term “knowingly” that stated in part that “the
government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts and
omissions were unlawful.” He contends this instruction relieved the government
of its burden to prove intent. The instruction, however, was given in the context of
explaining when an act is done “knowingly.” The element of intent was covered
by different instructions that adequately explained to the jury that the government
must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to violate the United States’
immigration laws. Knowledge and intent are separate and distinct elements of the
immigration crimes and the knowledge instruction was in accordance with the
Ninth Circuit model jury instruction. There was no error in connection with either
of the instructions and defense counsel did not object to either on the ground that
they in any way conflicted.
Appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the
convictions. The appellant’s conduct immediately before and after illegal aliens
scaled the border fence adjacent to the property was adequate for the jury to find
that Gallegos-Lopez was materially assisting the aliens’ illegal entry and
2
concealment from border authorities. Unlike the situation in United States v.
Vasquez-Chan, 978 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1992), upon which the appellant relies, there
was no readily apparent innocent explanation for the defendant’s conduct.
AFFIRMED.
3