United States v. Quintanilla-Dominguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: September 18, 2024
• Docket: 22-1198
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 18, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 22-1198 (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00406-RM-1) MIGUEL QUINTANILLA- (D. Colo.) DOMINGUEZ, a/k/a Luis F. Lopez- Montez, a/k/a Cesar Rodriguez,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

The Government indicted Defendant Miguel Quintanilla-Dominguez on one

count of illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. Invoking Arlington Heights, Defendant

argued the facially neutral § 1326 nevertheless violates the Equal Protection Clause

because Congress enacted it with the purpose of discriminating against Latin American

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 2

immigrants. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252

(1977). The district court disagreed and denied Defendant’s motion. The court

concluded § 1326 should properly be reviewed under the rational basis test and held it

withstood constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, assuming Arlington Heights applied,

the court held Defendant’s legislative history evidence was insufficient to show

Congress acted with discriminatory intent. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea

preserving his right to appeal this issue. Defendant then appealed the district court’s

denial of his motion to dismiss. We abated his appeal pending decision in United States

v. Amador-Bonilla, 102 F.4th 1110 (10th Cir. 2024).

We conclude Defendant’s claim is foreclosed by Amador-Bonilla. In Amador-

Bonilla, we rejected an Equal Protection challenge to § 1326 on the same grounds

Defendant asserts here. We left open the question whether to apply rational basis

scrutiny or the Arlington Heights framework and held § 1326 satisfies both tests. Id.

at 1115. First, applying the rational basis test, we held the defendant failed to prove

no rational basis exists for enacting § 1326. Id. at 1116. Likewise, Defendant here

makes no argument that § 1326 lacks a rational basis. Second, applying Arlington

Heights, we concluded the defendant’s legislative history evidence failed to show

Congress enacted § 1326 with racial malice. Id. at 1118—19. We see no meaningful

difference between Defendant and Amador-Bonilla’s evidence. Accordingly, we are

2 Appellate Case: 22-1198 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 3

bound by the panel’s decision. The district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion

to dismiss is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge