Court Opinion

ID: 9492681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:47:04.811848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:25.639351
License: Public Domain

TROTT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my judgment, willingness to accept deportation in the absence of a colorable, nonfrivolous defense to deportation is not outside the heartland. There is nothing atypical whatsoever about the usual alien convicted under section 1326 not having a defense to deportation and being willing to be deported, nothing. In this respect, I agree with the First and Third Circuits’ opinions in United States v. Clase-Espinal, 115 F.3d 1054, 1059 (1st Cir.1997), and United States v. Marin-Castaneda, 134 F.3d 551, 555 (3d Cir.1998). Thus, United States v. Sanchez-Rodriguez, 161 F.3d 556 (9th Cir.1998), which was wrongly decided, see id. at 564-69 (Trott, J., dissenting), is irrelevant.
This remand is not only based on faulty law, but is for no useful purpose because, based on his criminal history and numerous deportations, Rodriguez-Lopez clearly has no colorable defense.