No: 09-1175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SIDNEI De Miranda

We have appellate jurisdiction to review the District Court’s final judgment under 281
U.S.C. § 1291.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 09-1175
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SIDNEI De Miranda,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John
(No. 3-08-cr-00020-001)
District Judge: C.J. Curtis V. Gómez
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 1, 2009
Before: McKee, Fuentes and Nygaard, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 12, 2010)
McKee, Circuit Judge
Sidnei De Miranda appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of
acquittal. The sole issue on appeal is whether the government presented sufficient
evidence of alienage to support De Miranda’s conviction for unlawful reentry following
his deportation from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the reasons
that follow, we will affirm the judgment of conviction.1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
I.
In deciding if a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and draw all reasonable inferences in the government’s favor. United States
v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996).
Viewed in that light, the evidence established that Sidnei De Miranda arrived at the
airport in St. Thomas to board an airplane bound for Fort Lauderdale, Florida in March of
2008. However, he was taken to secondary inspection because he could not produce
evidence of citizenship, and because he seemed suspiciously nervous. When officials
asked him about his nationality, De Miranda stated that he was a Brazilian-born Brazilian
citizen. Upon reviewing De Miranda’s Alien File, officials found a fully executed
Warrant of Deportation which included his photograph and a fingerprint from his right
index finger. Thereafter, they arrested De Miranda and sent his fingerprints and the
warrant for forensic analysis. That examination and subsequent investigation disclosed
that De Miranda had previously been deported. Accordingly, he was subsequently he was
charged with illegally attempting to enter the United States following deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He proceeded to trial before a jury, and was convicted of
that charge. This appeal followed.
II.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
8 U.S.C. § 1326, makes it illegal for an alien who has previously been deported or
removed from the United States to reenter without the Attorney General’s permission.
The government therefore had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that De Miranda was
an alien who attempted to reenter the United States after being deported or removed, and
that he did so without having permission to reenter. Id; see also United States v. Dixon,
327 F.3d 257, 259 (3d Cir. 2003). The evidence here clearly was clearly sufficient to
prove each of those elements.
The jury heard evidence that when he was questioned at the St. Thomas airport, De
Miranda admitted that he had been born in Brazil, and that he had neither a U.S. passport
nor “green card.” The government introduced the executed warrant of deportation
containing a photograph and fingerprint taken when he was previously removed, as well
as the testimony of a fingerprint expert tying the fingerprint to De Miranda and there was
testimony that he was trying to board a plane in St. Thomas that was bound for Fort
Lauderdale Florida when he was arrested. De Miranda’s claim that this was not
sufficient to support his conviction is therefore as woeful as it is frivolous.
III.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --