Court Opinion

ID: 2965052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:36.096999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.586993
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

          No. 97-1062

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                    HIPOCRATE NAVEO-MORCELLO, A/K/A LUIS SANCHEZ,
                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                             Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                         and Pollak,** Senior District Judge.
                                       _____________________

                                _____________________

               Merle Ruth  Hass, by  appointment  of the  Court, with  whom
               ________________
          Applegate, Valauskas & Rosen was on brief for appellant.
          ____________________________
               Kevin  O'Regan, Assistant United  States Attorney, with whom
               ______________
          Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney, was  on  brief  for
          _________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 26, 1997

                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

          **    Of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  sitting   by
          designation.

                    HILL,  Senior   Circuit  Judge.     Defendant-Appellant
                    HILL,  Senior   Circuit  Judge.
                           _______________________

          Hip crate Naveo-Morcello  appeals the district court s  denial of

          his  motion to dismiss the  indictment, charging him with illegal

          reentry after deportation,  in violation of 8 U.S.C.   1326.  The

          district  court sentenced Naveo-Morcello  to fifty-one  months in

          prison and three years  supervised  release.  His appeal is based

          on the ground  that his prior deportation from  the United States

          was unlawful.

                    Under United States v. Mendoza-L pez,  107 S. Ct.  2148
                          _____________    _____________

          (1987), the  Supreme Court  held that  where a  defendant s prior

          deportation  constitutes a critical element of his alleged crime,

          and where  meaningful judicial  review of  that order is  denied,

          then a  court must review  the prior  deportation order.   Id. at
                                                                     __

          2154-55.

                    Here, in  a well-considered opinion, the district court

          found that  Naveo-Morcello had  voluntarily and  knowingly waived

          his right to judicial review.  It also found that his decision to

          leave  the country  was  not  due  to  unconscionable  Government

          conduct.  See,  e.g., United States v.  Vieira-Candelario, 6 F.3d
                    ___   ____  _____________     _________________

          12,  15 (1st  Cir.  1993).   It  concluded that  Naveo-Morcello s

          collateral   attack  of  his  deportation  was  foreclosed  under

          Mendoza-L pez.  We agree.
          _____________

                    We recognize  that court-appointed  counsel for  Naveo-

          Morcello in this appeal  was presented with the  proverbial sow s

          ear, from which, in brief and oral argument, she sought to make a

                                         -2-

          silk purse.  In spite of her commendable effort, that end was not

          achieved.

                    There  being no error,  the district court s  denial of

          Naveo-Morcello s motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed.

                    AFFIRMED.
                    AFFIRMED.

                                         -3-