Gomez-Gutierrez

United States v. Gomez-Gutierrez

Good Law
140 F.3d 1287·98 Daily Journal DAR 3573·1998 WL 159360·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6890·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2594
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 1998No. 96-50653California649 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gomez-Gutierrez appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and from the sentence imposed for that conviction. We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

There is no dispute that the predicate act for Gomez-Gutierrez’s conviction will be met if any one of his three prior deportations are valid. We focus on his 1989 deportation. Gomez-Gutierrez first contends that the 1989 deportation violated due process because he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be present at the deportation hearing.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is not required to provide actual notice, but only to make a reasonable effort to do so under all the circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); see generally Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657-58 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). It is a fair inference that on January 14, 1988, Gomez-Gutierrez told an INS agent that his address was on Woodworth Avenue. However, on July 1, 1988, Gomez-Gutierrez signed another document and received one document, each of which listed his address as on Walnut Street. We need not…

Concurring Opinion

Hawkins, J.

concurring:

I concur in the judgment.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.