UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL JOHN KACZMARAK, a/k/a

Michael Zbigniew Vonolazewski,  No. 02-4948 a/k/a Von Olsewski, a/k/a Michael

Zbigniew, a/k/a Michal Zbigniew,

a/k/a Michael Zbigniew von

Olswewski, a/k/a Michal Zbigniew

Olszewski,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CR-02-435-A)

Submitted: April 9, 2003

Decided: April 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Dale Warren Dover, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Michael John Kaczmarak pled guilty to one count of unlawful

attempt to re-enter the United States after deportation in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000). On appeal, he contends his due process

rights were violated because of alleged alterations to the order of

removal and collateral documents. He further contends the taking of

his fingerprints when he unlawfully re-entered the country violated

the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and

seizure. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

In the context of a prosecution for illegal reentry after deportation,

a defendant may collaterally attack a deportation order constituting an

element of the offense if he can show that: (1) he was effectively

deprived of his right to judicial review of the deportation order; (2)

the deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair; and (3) he has

exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available

to seek relief against the deportation order. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)

(2000); United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987). All

three conditions must be satisfied. United States v. Wilson, 316 F.3d

506, 509 (4th Cir. 2003). We find that Kaczmarak cannot challenge

the Order of Removal because the proceedings giving rise to the order

were not fundamentally unfair. Kaczmarak failed to show he suffered

prejudice as a result of the alleged defects. Id.

We further find the district court did not err by denying Kaczmarak’s motion to suppress the fingerprint evidence. "Routine border

searches may be conducted without a warrant or a showing of reasonable suspicion or probable cause." United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985). "A ‘routine’ [border] search is one

that does not seriously invade a traveler’s privacy. In evaluating

whether a search is ‘routine,’ the key variable is the invasion of the

privacy and dignity of the individual." United States v. Kelly, 302

2 UNITED STATES v. KACZMARAK
F.3d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). We find Kaczmarak’s Fourth Amendment rights were not

violated when authorities took his fingerprints after he was lawfully

detained after entering the country illegally. 

We affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. KACZMARAK 3