United States v. Avila-Sifuentes

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 31, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11110
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE CARLOS AVILA-SIFUENTES, also known as Roberto Avila,
also known as Juan Solis-Martinez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-17-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Carlos Avila-Sifuentes (Avila) appeals his conviction
following a jury trial for illegal reentry after removal from the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Avila argues
that the district court erroneously admitted a warrant of
deportation from his immigration file, which the Government
introduced as proof of his prior removal, because the warrant
contained impermissible hearsay. We have previously held that
warrants of deportation are excepted from the hearsay rule and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-11110
-2-
are admissible. See United States v. Quezada, 754 F.2d 1190,
1193-95 (5th Cir. 1985).
Avila also argues that the admission of the warrant of
deportation violated his right of confrontation and Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because the warrant was
testimonial in nature. This argument is foreclosed by circuit
precedent. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 265 (2006).
Avila further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,
specifically arguing that the warrant of deportation was
insufficient to prove that he was actually removed from the
United States. The testimony at trial showed that the order of
deportation in Avila’s “A” file was dated January 18, 1996, and
that an alien is typically deported the same date as the order.
The warrant of deportation from Avila’s immigration file
contained Avila’s signature and thumbprint and the signature of a
deportation officer who witnessed the removal. An Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agent also testified that if an alien
with a completed warrant of deportation form in his file had not
been removed, there would be further documentation of the
occurrence in the file. A rational juror could conclude from the
evidence that Avila was actually removed from the United States.
See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also
Quezada, 754 F.2d at 1194-96.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --