TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Jose Chavez Garcia

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Chavez GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Garcia, 875 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 23, 1989
Docket
No. 88-3198
Judges
Alarcon, Ferguson, Thompson
Citations
875 F.2d 2571989 WL 533301989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7120

Opinion — Thompson

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:

Jose Chavez Garcia (“Garcia”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5), which makes it unlawful for “an alien ... illegally or unlawfully in the United States ... to possess ... any firearm.”

On July 6, 1987, Garcia purchased a firearm in Wenatchee, Washington. On October 20, 1987, he was indicted under section 922. Garcia, who by his own admission had illegally entered the United States sometime prior to July 6, 1987, did not apply for legal status until October 22, 1987.

Garcia contends that the district court erred in refusing to give Garcia’s proposed jury instructions, which read as follows:

1. An alien present in the United States with the knowledge or permission of the Immigration & Naturalization service is residing in the United States under “col- or of law.”

2. An alien present in the United States “under color of law” is residing in the United States legally and lawfully.

These instructions go well beyond the plain language of the statute under which Garcia was convicted.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5).

Cf. Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir.1985) (discussing scope of welfare benefits provision expressly applicable to aliens “permanently residing in the United States under color of law”).

At the time Garcia possessed the firearm he had not applied for legal status, and had *258 admittedly entered the country illegally. Under these circumstances, he was “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” for the purposes of this section. The district court committed no error.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11993: 12000: 12003: 12005: 22006: 12007: 119902026peak 2005 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Salman266 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
  2. United States v. Konileti Latu479 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2007)
  3. United States v. Elrawy448 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2006)
  4. United States v. Daniel Bravo-Muzquiz412 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005)
  5. United States v. Dennis Danston Rhaburn2 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1993)
  6. United States v. Zenon Hernandez913 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir. 1990)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Konileti Latu479 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2007)
  2. United States v. Elrawy448 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2006)
  3. United States v. Daniel Bravo-Muzquiz412 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005)
  4. United States v. Orellana405 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005)
  5. United States v. Salman266 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
  6. United States v. Revuelta109 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1985) 65

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list