Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Omar Argueta-Rosales

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 12, 2016No. 14-50384, 14-50385Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBybee, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that the specific-intent standard that governs Argue-ta-Rosales’s case is supplied by United States v. Lombera-Valdovinos, 429 F.3d 927, 928-30 (9th Cir.2005). Because'the district court failed to apply that standard, and because we are bound by Lomberar-Valdovinos, I concur in the majority’s judgment vacating the conviction and remanding this case for retrial. Maj. Op. at 1158.

In all other respects, however, I dissent. I am convinced that Lomberar-Valdovinos was wrongly decided and that our understanding of when an alien is “free from official restraint” has reached…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Kaplan v. TodSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. United States v. AguilarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  3. United States of America,plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro Pacheco-MedinaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  4. United States v. Juan Gonzalez-TorresCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  5. United States v. Gerardo Parga-RosasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API