United States v. Rigoberto Campos-Atrisco

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 26, 2023
• Docket: 21-50263
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50263

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:19-mj-24683-KSC-BAS-1 v. 3:19-mj-24683-KSC-BAS

RIGOBERTO CAMPOS-ATRISCO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 21, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, NGUYEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Rigoberto Campos-Atrisco appeals from a district court order

denying his appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision and affirming his conviction

and sentence for attempted improper entry as a noncitizen, 8 U.S.C.§ 1325(a)(1).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it

here. We affirm the district court’s decision.

1. The record does not support that the magistrate judge impermissibly

shifted the burden of proof to Campos-Atrisco. While the magistrate judge made

certain concerning statements, those statements do not prove that the judge

improperly shifted the burden when “[r]ead in the context of the entire trial.”

United States v. Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149, 1155–57 (9th Cir. 2001); see United

States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2009).

2. Campos-Atrisco argues that his conviction was unlawful because

Congress enacted § 1325 to discriminate against Mexicans and other Central and

South Americans. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429

U.S. 252 (1977). But Campos-Atrisco relies on the legislative history of the 1929

Immigration Act to show a discriminatory purpose for § 1325, and this Court has

held that any discriminatory purpose motivating the 1929 Act did not “taint” the

current version of the statute from 1952. United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th

1133, 1150–51 (9th Cir. 2023). Therefore, this argument is foreclosed.

AFFIRMED.