United States v. Jose Arnolfo Calles-Pineda
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
Jose Calles-Pineda appeals his conviction for entering the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 1 We affirm.
Calles-Pineda defended by collaterally attacking on due process grounds the two deportations underlying the section 1326 charge. A well-established Ninth Circuit rule permits such a defense in criminal prosecutions. United States v. Rangel-Gonzales, 617 F.2d 529, 530 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F.2d 149, 152 (9th Cir. 1975). The government challenges the validity of our rule in light of Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. Evaristo Rangel-GonzalesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Ramon Gasca-KraftCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- United States v. Jose Guadalupe Barraza-LeonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Haidar v. CoomeyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1974
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. Mendoza-LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Daniel Proa-TovarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- FEDORENKOBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1984
- United States v. Reyes-BonillaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- United States v. Arturo Lopez-VasquezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.