Court Opinion

ID: 9437184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 03:39:03.241247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:36.910170
License: Public Domain

LUCERO, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join in the majority’s resolution of Minjares-Alvarez’s Fifth Amendment claim and write separately to concur in the majority’s resolution of defendant’s Vienna Convention claim.
Like the majority, I would have resolved Minjares-Alvarez’s Vienna Convention claim based upon the holding in United States v. Chanthadam that “[e]ven presuming the Vienna Convention creates individually enforceable rights,” defendant Minjares-Alvarez, like Chanthadara, “has not demonstrated that denial of such rights caused him prejudice.” 230 F.3d 1237, 1256 (10th Cir.2000). As the majority notes, “the district court made a factual finding that Minjares’s assertion that he would have contacted the consulate had he been aware of his Vienna Convention rights lacked credibility.” Majority Op. at 988. Having decided the case on that basis, I would not reach the remaining issues.
Particularly in matters of international concern, I think it appropriate to reach only those issues necessary for resolution of the dispute before us.