In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-3214 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:18-CR-00823(1) — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2020 — DECIDED OCTOBER 7, 2021 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Chief Judge. A grand jury indicted Alejandro Campos-Rivera for unlawfully reentering the United States after removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was initially repre- sented by an assistant federal public defender, but counsel moved to withdraw at Campos-Rivera’s request based on an irreconcilable conflict between the two. The motion was granted, and a new lawyer was appointed. 2 No. 19-3214 Campos-Rivera then filed a half-dozen pro se motions raising issues that his new attorney declined to pursue. The district judge told him that he could not proceed pro se and through counsel. Campos-Rivera asked the judge to dismiss his attorney and appoint a third. The judge declined to do so, explaining that a disagreement about motion strategy did not justify the appointment of yet another attorney. The judge gave Campos-Rivera a choice: move forward with his current lawyer or proceed pro se. Campos-Rivera chose the latter. The judge then addressed and denied the pro se motions. The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts, and the judge found Campos-Rivera guilty. His appeal focuses on the judge’s refusal to appoint a third lawyer and the sufficiency of the evidence on the intent element of the crime. We affirm. The judge was right: a disagreement between attorney and client over pretrial motions is not grounds for the appointment of a new attorney. In any event, Campos- Rivera validly waived his right to counsel; the judge con- ducted a comprehensive waiver colloquy to ensure that the decision was fully informed and voluntary. And Campos- Rivera’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails for two reasons. First, § 1326(a) is a general-intent crime. The government need only prove that the defendant knowingly reentered the United States, not that he intended to do so unlawfully. The stipulated facts support an inference of knowing reentry—indeed, that is the only reasonable infer- ence here. Second, Campos-Rivera complains that the judge failed to make a specific factual finding regarding the intent element. But no such finding was necessary. In a bench trial, No. 19-3214 3 a general finding of guilt suffices unless a party asks for specific findings of fact. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(c). Campos- Rivera did not make that request, so the judge’s general finding of guilt sufficed. I. Background Campos-Rivera is a native and citizen of Mexico. In January 2011 he was convicted of two state felonies in Kane County, Illinois. He was removed in May 2012 but reentered the country at some point thereafter and was apprehended by immigration officials on October 19, 2018, in Wheaton, Illinois. A federal grand jury …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals