Topic
Every decision we've filed under Immigration (Criminal).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. The court held that arguments challenging the recidivism enhancement under the relevant statute are foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a sentence under the federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the statute was foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a thirty-month prison sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's imposition of special supervised-release conditions following a guilty plea for illegal reentry. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate any plain error in the oral pronouncement of those conditions.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge. The court held that the defendant failed to mount a valid collateral attack against his administrative removal order.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge. The court held that the defendant failed to mount a valid collateral attack against his administrative removal order.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an illegal reentry indictment because the defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding an immigration appeal must be presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals before it can be raised in federal court.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of illegal reentry into the United States. The court rejected arguments that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence or that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a thirty-six-month sentence for illegal reentry after the appellant conceded his constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. The court granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, rejecting the argument that the sentencing enhancement is unconstitutional.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed an above-Guidelines sentence of one hundred months for a defendant convicted of illegal re-entry and drug offenses. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the defendant's pre-sentencing disciplinary conduct heavily in its sentencing decision.