USA v. Yoel Emilio Baez-Hernandez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14486
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00064-EAK-TGW-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YOEL EMILIO BAEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 24, 2016)
Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Yoel Baez-Hernandez appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to bring
aliens to the United States at a place other than as designated by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I),
and (a)(1)(B)(i); and (2) bringing aliens to the United States for the purpose of
commercial advantage and financial gain knowing they had not received prior
authorization to enter, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
After review of the record and briefs and with the benefit of oral argument,
we first grant defendant Baez-Hernandez’s motion to supplement the record on
appeal in order to make an informed decision as to the late discovery issue
defendant Baez-Hernandez raises on appeal. Having granted the motion, we
conclude that the district court: (1) did not err in denying his motion to suppress
cell-cite-location data; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to
exclude I-213 forms; and (3) did not err in denying his motions for judgment of
acquittal.
However, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for a continuance given the volume of discovery provided by
*
Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein, United States District Judge for the District of
Columbia, sitting by designation.
Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the government so close to the trial date. The district court clearly should have
granted a short continuance. Therefore we grant the defendant’s motion for a new
trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --