USA V. OLIVER BIBIANO-MAYO, No. 20-50168 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-50168 D.C. No. 3:19-mj-23205-FAG-BTM-1 v. OLIVER BIBIANO-MAYO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Oliver Bibiano-Mayo appeals from the district court’s order affirming his guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bibiano-Mayo contends that his conviction must be vacated because * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1325(a)(1) violates the non-delegation doctrine and because the district court did not advise him at the plea hearing that knowledge of alienage is an element of the offense. As he concedes, both of these claims are foreclosed. See United States v. Melgar-Diaz, 2 F.4th 1263, 1266-69 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that § 1325(a)(1) does not violate the non-delegation doctrine), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 813 (2022); United States v. Rizo-Rizo, 16 F.4th 1292 (9th Cir. 2021) (knowledge of alienage is not an element of a § 1325(a)(1) offense). AFFIRMED. 2 20-50168

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.