2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-19-2006 

# U SA v . Outram P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3790

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Outr am" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 443. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/4431 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 3790 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

vs. R O D E R I C K R A N D A L L O U T R A M , A / K / A Sean M . B r ew s t er Ro d e r i c k Ra n d a l l Ou tr a m, A ppel l ant

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

(D . C . C ri m N o . 0 3 -C R -00 1 1 5 -1 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2006 B efore: S L O V ITE R , W E IS, and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed Sept ember19, 2006

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

D e f e n d a n t p lea d e d g u iltyto a n u n law f u l re -e n tryin to th is c o u n tryin vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . H e w as s ent ence d t o fi fty - s even mont hs in c a rc e ra tio n u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s , c o n s e c u tiv e to a s ta te s e n te n c e h e w a s th e n s e rv in g .2 D efe ndantappea l ed and thi s C our taff i r m ed the convi ct i on and the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence . W e r emanded, how ever , for r es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . U ni t ed St at es v. O u tr am , 1 3 2 F . A p p ’x 4 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng and, aft er a rg u m e n ts b yc o u n se l, rein sta ted th e o rig in a l se n ten c e . H a v in g re v iew e d th e re c o rd in th is c a s e , w e f

in d n o e rr o r a n d d o n o t f in d th e s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . O u tr am also att em p ts no w to co ll aterall yatt ac k h is 19 9 3 rem o v al ord er, w hi ch w as i s s ued in a b se n tia , arg u in g th a t itw a s f u n d a m e n tallyu n f

a ir. In iti a lly , w e n o te th a t O u tra m f

a iled to ra ise th is c laim in h is o rig in a l ap p e a l o f h is s e n ten c e a n d is for ecl os ed fr om doi ng s o now . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pul tr one, 241 F. 3d 306, 307- 08 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he cha l l enge a l s o fai l s on the mer i t s . T o pr evai l on a col l at er al att ack on a depor t at i on or derunder8 U . S. C . § 1326( d) , ( 1) an al i en mustexhaus tanyadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es thatm ayhave be en ava i l abl e; ( 2) the deport at i on pr ocee di ngs m us thave dep ri ved the ali en o f t he o pp ortun i tyfor j ud i ci al revi ew ; and (3) entryof the order m ust have be en funda m ent al l yunfai r . “[A ] l l thr ee [ r equi r ement s ] m us tbe metbefor e an a l i en w i l l be perm i t t ed t o m ounta col l at er al chal l enge t o the under l y i ng r emoval or der . ” U ni t ed S tat es v . T o rres, 3 8 3 F . 3 d 9 2 , 9 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).3 O u tra m h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t th e e n tryo f th e o rd e r w a s f

u n d a m e n tally unfai r . “‘ [F] undament al fai r nes s i s a ques t i on of pr ocedur e. ’ ” I d. at103 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. L opez- O r t i z, 313 F. 3d 225, 230 ( 5th C i r . 2002) . W i th r es pectt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs , “‘ due pr oces s r equi r es thatan al i en w ho fac es [r emoval ] be pr ovi ded ( 1) not i ce of the cha r ges agai ns thi m , ( 2) a hea r i ng befor e an e xecut i ve oradmi ni s tr at i ve tr i bunal , and ( 3) a fa i roppor tuni tyt o be hea r d. ’ ” I d. at104 ( quot i ng L opez- O r t i z, 313 F .3 d a t 2 3 0 ). I n t he pr es entcas e, O utr am re cei ved not i ce of the r emoval pr ocee di ngs and an opportuni tyt o be hea r d befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge. H e fa i l ed, how ever , t o appea rat thi s hear i ng. T hi s i s nota deni al of due pr oces s . Fur ther , w e not e thatO utr am does not ap p ea r t o co n testthe f

ac ts un d erly ing the re m o v al ord er. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e J u d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .