United States v. Arturo Hernandez
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
We are faced here with the task of reconciling an immigration statute providing venue where a defendant was “apprehended” with the constitutional guarantee that a defendant must be tried where the crime was committed. Specifically, we must decide where the crime was committed in the case of a deported alien prosecuted for being “found in” the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. This analysis in turn is determinative of whether venue was proper. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for a transfer of venue. We hold that…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Rodriguez-MorenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Travis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. CoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. Filiberto Guzman-BrunoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- United States of America,plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro Pacheco-MedinaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. Angelica LopezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Gerardo Parga-RosasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Ortiz-HernandezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- State v. HamptonOhio Supreme Court · 2012
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.