Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin Josue AVELAR-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30327
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 24, 2016.
    Michael Monroe Simpson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jordan Mark Siverd, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Valerie Welz Jusselin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Melvin Josué Avelar-Castro entered a conditional guilty plea (he reserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment) to illegally reentering the United States following deportation subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, Avelar contends he was deprived of his roommate’s testimony that officers entered their residence without his roommate’s consent because he was deported before Avelar was indicted.

Citing United States v. Roque-Villanueva, the court ruled that even if, ar-guendo, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, evidence establishing Avelar’s guilt (evidence of his identity), is not suppressible. 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942, 943-44 (5th Cir.1983) (holding defendant lacked standing to challenge the admissibility of his Alien File).

Avelar maintains Roque-Villanueva was wrongly decided. He also asserts Pineda-Chinchilla violates the rule of orderliness because earlier ease law permitted defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence despite lacking a possessory or privacy interest. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another panel in the absence of an intervening change in law or contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir.2014), Therefore, Roque-Villanueva is binding precedent. Id.; 175 F.3d at 346.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.