Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio S. HURTADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-22
Citations: 195 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 05-4399
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio S. HURTADO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 132–132

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio S. HURTADO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4399.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 22, 2006.
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.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
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, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (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 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. RApp. P. 42(b) are denied.
AFFIRMED.