USA v. Francisco Valdovinos-Mendez, No. 09-50532 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed a conviction for illegally reentering the United States following removal where he was arrested by a police officer, gave the officer a false name and false driver's license, and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. At issue was whether the admission into evidence of a certificate of non-existence of record ("CNR") and certain documents from defendant's Alien Registration File ("A-file") violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause; whether the admission of testimony from an A-file custodian regarding the absence of any record of defendant applying for permission to reenter violated the Best Evidence Rule; whether defendant's sixteen-level enhancement to his Sentencing Guidelines base offense level imposed for a prior assault with a deadly weapon qualified as a crime of violence; and whether defendant's prior felony conviction should be found by the jury before subjecting him to a greater maximum sentence in light of Nijhawan v.Holder. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated where admission of the CNR was harmless and where admission of the A-file was not testimonial in nature. The court also held that the Best Evidence Rule was not violated where the evidence at issue was in regards to the absence of records and where the evidence at issue was public records that were self-authenticating. The court further held that the sixteen-level enhancement was properly imposed where a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon qualified as a crime of violence. The court finally held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was not violated where Nijhawan merely provided dicta and Almendarez-Torres v. United States continued to be binding authority.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 15, 2011.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.