USA v. Yoel Emilio Baez-Hernandez, No. 14-14486 (11th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14486 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00064-EAK-TGW-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus YOEL EMILIO BAEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 24, 2016) Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: Yoel Baez-Hernandez appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to bring aliens to the United States at a place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(i); and (2) bringing aliens to the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage and financial gain knowing they had not received prior authorization to enter, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). After review of the record and briefs and with the benefit of oral argument, we first grant defendant Baez-Hernandez’s motion to supplement the record on appeal in order to make an informed decision as to the late discovery issue defendant Baez-Hernandez raises on appeal. Having granted the motion, we conclude that the district court: (1) did not err in denying his motion to suppress cell-cite-location data; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to exclude I-213 forms; and (3) did not err in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. However, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance given the volume of discovery provided by * Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 14-14486 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 3 of 3 the government so close to the trial date. The district court clearly should have granted a short continuance. Therefore we grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 3