Opinion ID: 184120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Use of the Term Illegal Alien at Sentencing

Text: Finally, Acambaro contends that the district court committed reversible error by using the term illegal alien during the sentencing hearing. Acambaro claims that the use of this term violated its due process rights and the right to the appearance of fairness in a sentencing proceeding. To support its claim, Acambaro cites to United States v. Cruz-Padilla, 227 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir.2000). Acambaro's reliance on Cruz-Padilla is misplaced. Cruz-Padilla involved the use of the term illegal alien during closing arguments of a jury trial in which the argument was that, the defendant's status as an illegal alien made him more likely to commit crimes. Here, however, the term illegal alien was never used in front of a jury; this case resulted in a conviction by plea. Moreover, the term illegal alien was used by the district court to describe the individuals working for the defendant, not the defendant itself. Additionally, along with this term being used by the district court, the term illegal alien was also used in the indictment and it was used at least twelve times in the presentence report. Despite the numerous times the phrase illegal alien was used, the defendant never objected to the use of that term. Therefore, our review is for plain error. U.S. v. McGlothen, 556 F.3d 698, 702 (8th Cir.2009). The use of the term illegal alien was not error and in no way affected any of Acambaro's rights. The arguments regarding the use of the term illegal aliens are meritless. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.