United States v. Hurtado , 195 F. App'x 132 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4399
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO S. HURTADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-04-307)
Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 22, 2006
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank
DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio S. Hurtado pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by an illegal alien and was sentenced to five months in prison.
Hurtado now appeals. He claims that his conviction must be
overturned because, upon arrest, he was not advised of his right to
contact his consulate, in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. The United States moves to
dismiss the appeal on the ground that Hurtado unconditionally
waived his right to appeal.
We deny the motion to dismiss because Hurtado plainly
reserved his right to raise the Vienna Convention issue on appeal.
However, we conclude that Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669(2006), is dispositive of the issue, and we therefore affirm the
conviction.
In Sanchez-Llamas, the Supreme Court held that Article 36,
which “addresses communication between an individual and his
consular officers when the individual is detained by authorities in
a foreign country,” id. at 2674, does not require suppression of
incriminating statements when an arrestee is not notified of his
right to contact his consulate. Id. Just as a violation of
Article 36 does not warrant suppression of incriminating
statements, it does not require reversal of a conviction. We
accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. The motion to place case in abeyance for
Sanchez-Llamas and Hurtado’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 42(b) are denied.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -