Opinion ID: 162189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Deportation of Potential Witnesses

Text: Mr. Favela argues that the immediate deportation of eighteen out of the twenty passengers violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights by depriving him of material evidence and by failing to provide him with an attorney before he waived the right to delay deportation. Mr. Favela’s argument is undermined by the language of the waiver form that he signed. See Rec. vol. I, doc. 77, at 6-7 n.11 (District Court Order, filed July 12, 2000). That form, presented to Mr. Favela in Spanish and signed by him, states that Mr. Favela waives his right to delay the witnesses’ deportation and also informs him that he has a right to a government appointed lawyer to advise him on the decision: See id. (noting that the form stated, “You have the right to have -19- a lawyer assist you at this time in making this decision to retain or release these witnesses; if you cannot afford a lawyer, the United States government will provide you one at no cost to you.”). Mr. Favela argues in conclusory fashion that the waiver is invalid. See Aplt’s Br. at 44. His conclusory statements are not sufficient to overcome the waiver. See Lujan-Castro, 602 F.2d at 878 (affirming the district court’s finding that a similar waiver was knowingly and voluntarily executed and stating that “[t]he district court’s conclusion that the waiver was knowingly and intelligently executed is a finding of fact that may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous”). Moreover, Mr. Favela has failed to establish that any of the eighteen passengers who were deported could have provided exculpatory evidence. We therefore conclude that the deportation of the eighteen witnesses did not violate Mr. Favela’s right to counsel or his due process rights.