-
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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