United States v. Paquet
This text of 131 F. Supp. 32 (United States v. Paquet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant pleaded guilty on March 30, 1955, to falsely claiming United States citizenship when making an entry into the United States at Honolulu, Hawaii, in violation of 66 Stat. 229 (1952), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325.1 She is an alien admitted from Canada to the United States in 1946 for permanent residence.
In 1954 the defendant desired to go to Guam from Hawaii. In order to do so, she had to comply with a Navy regulation of doubtful validity, which requires a passport for anyone entering Guam. The defendant obtained a passport by impersonating with documents a cousin who is a United States citizen. She then went to Guam.
To avoid prosecution for acts committed on Guam, the defendant jumped bail, boarded a commercial airplane, and flew to Honolulu via Wake Island. At Honolulu she asserted to the Immigration officials that she was a United States citizen, as evidenced by her passport. For obtaining the passport by false representation she is under indictment for violations of 62 Stat. 742 (1948), 18 U.S.C. § 911, and 62 Stat. 771 (1948), 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (United States v. Paquet, Criminal No. 10,950).
The case was called for sentence on May 19, 1955. Three days before, the [34]*34Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in United States ex rel. Alcantra v. Boyd, 222 F.2d 445, became available. Citing it for the proposition that travel between Guam and Hawaii cannot give rise to an “entry” into the United States, the Court questioned whether or not the plea of guilt should be set aside.
The Government took the position that the confession and conviction should stand. An attempt was made to distinguish United States ex rel. Alcantra v. Boyd, supra, upon the ground that the landing on Wake Island was a stopover at a foreign port or at an outlying possession of the United States. It is therefore contended that the coming to Hawaii was an “entry” within the meaning of 66 Stat. 229 (1952), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325. The Court felt otherwise, set the plea of guilty aside, discharged the defendant, and dismissed the case.
While the defendant’s claim to United States citizenship was admittedly false, it was not made in connection with an “entry” into the United States as defined by 66 Stat. 166 (1952), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (13).2 The defendant was not coming from a “foreign port or place or from an outlying possession * * By definition set forth in 66 Stat. 166 (1952), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (29), 3 Wake Island is not an outlying possession of the United States. Nor is it a port or place in a foreign state as defined in 66 Stat. 166 (1952), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a) (14).4 Indeed, Wake is so far from being “foreign” that it is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 62 Stat. 877 (1948), as amended 63 Stat. 99 (1949), 28 U.S.C.A. § 91.5
As indicated by the language of the statute, as well as emphasized by the judicial decisions of appellate courts, the word “entry” is a word of art having the special meaning here accorded to it. United States ex rel. Alcantra v. Boyd, supra; Gonzales v. Barber, 9 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 398, affirmed 1954, 347 U.S. 637, 74 S.Ct. 822, 98 L.Ed. 1009.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
131 F. Supp. 32, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-paquet-hid-1955.