United States v. Naveo-Morcello ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion





    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    ____________________

    No. 97-1062

    UNITED STATES,
    Appellee,

    v.

    HIPOCRATE NAVEO-MORCELLO, A/K/A LUIS SANCHEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Boudin, Circuit Judge, _____________

    Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

    and Pollak,** Senior District Judge. _____________________

    _____________________

    Merle Ruth Hass, by appointment of the Court, with whom ________________
    Applegate, Valauskas & Rosen was on brief for appellant. ____________________________
    Kevin O'Regan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom ______________
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for _________________
    appellee.



    ____________________

    November 26, 1997

    ____________________

    ____________________

    * Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

    ** Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by
    designation.












    HILL, Senior Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant HILL, Senior Circuit Judge. _______________________

    Hip crate Naveo-Morcello appeals the district court s denial of

    his motion to dismiss the indictment, charging him with illegal

    reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The

    district court sentenced Naveo-Morcello to fifty-one months in

    prison and three years supervised release. His appeal is based

    on the ground that his prior deportation from the United States

    was unlawful.

    Under United States v. Mendoza-L pez, 107 S. Ct. 2148 _____________ _____________

    (1987), the Supreme Court held that where a defendant s prior

    deportation constitutes a critical element of his alleged crime,

    and where meaningful judicial review of that order is denied,

    then a court must review the prior deportation order. Id. at __

    2154-55.

    Here, in a well-considered opinion, the district court

    found that Naveo-Morcello had voluntarily and knowingly waived

    his right to judicial review. It also found that his decision to

    leave the country was not due to unconscionable Government

    conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Vieira-Candelario, 6 F.3d ___ ____ _____________ _________________

    12, 15 (1st Cir. 1993). It concluded that Naveo-Morcello s

    collateral attack of his deportation was foreclosed under

    Mendoza-L pez. We agree. _____________

    We recognize that court-appointed counsel for Naveo-

    Morcello in this appeal was presented with the proverbial sow s

    ear, from which, in brief and oral argument, she sought to make a




    -2-












    silk purse. In spite of her commendable effort, that end was not

    achieved.

    There being no error, the district court s denial of

    Naveo-Morcello s motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed.

    AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.












































    -3-






Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1062

Filed Date: 12/1/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015