United States v. Jose Chavez Garcia

875 F.2d 257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7120, 1989 WL 53330
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 23, 1989
Docket88-3198
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 875 F.2d 257 (United States v. Jose Chavez Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Chavez Garcia, 875 F.2d 257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7120, 1989 WL 53330 (9th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:

Jose Chavez Garcia (“Garcia”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which makes it unlawful for “an alien ... illegally or unlawfully in the United States ... to possess ... any firearm.”

On July 6, 1987, Garcia purchased a firearm in Wenatchee, Washington. On October 20, 1987, he was indicted under section 922. Garcia, who by his own admission had illegally entered the United States sometime prior to July 6, 1987, did not apply for legal status until October 22, 1987.

Garcia contends that the district court erred in refusing to give Garcia’s proposed jury instructions, which read as follows:

1. An alien present in the United States with the knowledge or permission of the Immigration & Naturalization service is residing in the United States under “col- or of law.”
2. An alien present in the United States “under color of law” is residing in the United States legally and lawfully.

These instructions go well beyond the plain language of the statute under which Garcia was convicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Cf. Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir.1985) (discussing scope of welfare benefits provision expressly applicable to aliens “permanently residing in the United States under color of law”).

At the time Garcia possessed the firearm he had not applied for legal status, and had *258 admittedly entered the country illegally. Under these circumstances, he was “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” for the purposes of this section. The district court committed no error.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Konileti Latu
479 F.3d 1153 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Latu
Ninth Circuit, 2007
United States v. Elrawy
448 F.3d 309 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Daniel Bravo-Muzquiz
412 F.3d 1052 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Orellana
405 F.3d 360 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Salman
266 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (M.D. Florida, 2003)
United States v. Revuelta
109 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (N.D. California, 2000)
United States v. Dennis Danston Rhaburn
2 F.3d 1159 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Zenon Hernandez
913 F.2d 1506 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
875 F.2d 257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7120, 1989 WL 53330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-chavez-garcia-ca9-1989.