Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321205489/United-States-v-Thompson-Riviere-561-F-3d-345-4th-Cir-2009
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:14:44+00:00

Document:
Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge.
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Duncan joined.
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; N. G.
court to allow him to withdraw his plea.
punishment." Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969).
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82-83 (2004).
States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 321 (4th Cir. 2007), cert.
unreasonably long-shot gamble on beating by standing trial a fair, reasonable and just guilty plea.
to alternative courses of action.").
129 S. Ct. 41 (2008).
35 years and are now deceased.
United States the right to operate the Canal until December 31, 1999." Id.
"The vehicle for United States administration of the Canal [was] the Panama Canal Commission, a United States Government agency. . . ." Id.
the Canal Zone. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp.2d 63, 65 (D.N.H.
that he had no further information at that time.
of the United States. . . ."
birth. The district court rejected the defendants argument.
analysis. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
legitimated was the pertinent issue.
must determine whether the agencys interpretation of the statute in question is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Id.
the court did in construing section 1403(b) in Connolly. . . .
[is] legitimated. . . .
analysis pertaining to the issue of legitimization.
that had "very little information about its genesis or identity"
because it merely appears to be an agency interpretation letter.
552 F.3d at 89 n.2.
drawn anywhere in the legislative history.
court to enforce the plain statutory language." Id. at 90.
includes the deceased father of a posthumous child).
done so expressly, not by implication. See 8 U.S.C.
pursuant to select provisions of 1401 and 1408).
challenges the courts interpretation of 1403(a).
this acknowledgment, the government argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that David Hughes is the biological father of Barbara Hughes and Thompson-Riviere.
required to provide conclusive proof of innocence").
the "quality or power of inspiring belief," United States v.
abused its discretion if it had granted the plea withdrawal motion.
United States v. Hamilton, 510 F.3d 1209, 1214 (10th Cir.
Cir. 2000); United States v. Haley, 784 F.2d 1218, 1219 (4th Cir. 1986).
omitted). Here, Thompson-Riviere has not simply changed his story.
Hughes might be his father.
he may determine the status of his citizenship.
that he cannot be convicted of the offense.
statutory interpretation de novo. Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v.
used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Id.
legal innocence and whether he should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
considered in combination with the other plea withdrawal factors.
natural parents was an American citizen." (emphasis added)).
considered the meaning of the term "parent" in 18 U.S.C.
legally terminated. The district court had dismissed the indictment, holding that the plain meaning of the term "parent"
this section have been terminated by a final court order."
Sheek is instructive here. Like "parent," the term "father"
right to citizenship arises if, among other things, the "father"
("In interpreting statutory texts courts use the ordinary meaning of terms unless context requires a different result.").
from express language to that effect.").
from any obligation to defer to it.").
to withdraw his guilty plea.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.