WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) joined Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Border Control and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of convicted U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The co-signors of the brief also filed an amicus curiae brief in the agents’ initial appeal.

Ramos and Compean entered federal prison on January 17, 2007, to begin serving sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across the U.S. border in 2005. The agents were convicted of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence, deprivation of civil rights and tampering with an official proceeding. On July 28, 2008, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in the agents’ case, affirming all convictions except those for tampering with an official proceeding.

“Upon hearing that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals failed to reverse the agents’ unjust conviction, I was deeply saddened for the agents and their families,” Congressman Jones said. “Many of my colleagues and I were especially troubled to learn that the Court upheld the prosecution’s use of the 18 U.S.C.S. 924(c) gun charge, which makes it a crime to use, carry or possess a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. This statute was enacted by Congress to discourage criminals from carrying guns. It was never intended to apply to law enforcement officers who are required to carry firearms on the job. The Court’s affirmation of the 924 (c) gun charge in this case sets a dangerous precedent of application to law enforcement officers who act within the scope of their official duties.”

“This case is not closed,” Jones said. “Those of us who have long urged a pardon for Ramos and Compean will continue to support them in their legal appeals, and we will work tirelessly to correct this miscarriage of justice.”

The brief argues that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Panel misread the 18 U.S.C.S. 924 (c) statute – contrary to binding precedent – by upholding the prosecution’s indictment of Ramos and Compean based on a sentencing factor, “discharge” of a firearm, rather than an element of the offense, “possess[ing]” a firearm in “furtherance of a crime of violence” or “us[ing] or carry[ing] a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence,” as required by Congress. The brief concludes that the indictment was plain error, substantially affecting the agents’ rights, and undermining the integrity, fairness and reputation of the judicial proceedings.