Topic
Every decision we've filed under Immigration (Criminal).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a 27-month prison sentence for illegal reentry, ruling that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to address a downward variance argument. The court also dismissed a challenge to the statutory maximum, holding that the issue is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a 212-month sentence for a felon-in-possession conviction, ruling that the defendant waived any challenge to the statutory mandatory minimum by explicitly agreeing to it in his plea agreement. The court held that the defendant's clear admissions constituted a waiver of the right to appeal the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, precluding review under the plain error standard.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge, holding that a California rape conviction categorically matches the federal definition of rape as an aggravated felony. Because the state offense qualifies as an aggravated felony, the defendant could not satisfy the fundamental unfairness requirement necessary to collaterally attack his removal order.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry, ruling that a district court does not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to explicitly define 'official restraint' during a guilty plea colloquy. The court held that no clear or obvious error occurred because binding precedent does not require judges to address surveillance as a form of official restraint.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of a defendant charged with illegal reentry, ruling that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to order a competency exam sua sponte. The court further held that the district court acted properly in removing the defendant from the courtroom after he repeatedly disrupted proceedings despite warnings.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal by a defendant who failed to prove the government breached his plea agreement. The court held that the government satisfied its sentencing recommendation obligation by including it in the presentence report.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Pedro Delgado-Ramirez for illegal reentry. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the statutory sentencing enhancement was foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Jorge Galvan-Martinez's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that a Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The court held that the totality of circumstances, including proximity to the border and recent illegal activity, supported the stop under established legal standards.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 46-month prison sentence for illegal reentry after removal, rejecting arguments that a sentencing enhancement for a post-removal DUI was applied in error. The court held that the enhancement was proper under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's history of impaired driving.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a one hundred and eighty month prison sentence for illegal reentry and possession of child pornography. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's upward variance from the advisory sentencing range.