United States v. Eloy Ballesteros-Selinger

Good Law
454 F.3d 973·2006 WL 2005970·70 Fed. R. Serv. 773·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18073
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 19, 200605-50287California634 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gould, J.

Upon a trial by jury, Eloy Ballesteros-Selinger (“Ballesteros”) was convicted of illegal re-entry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Ballesteros contends that the district court erred in admitting a memorandum of oral decision into evidence urging the theory that its admission violated the Confrontation Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Ballesteros was born in, and is a citizen of, Nicaragua. On September 30, 2003, federal immigration agents arrested Bal-lesteros for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 .

During the jury trial that followed, the district court over-ruled Ballesteros’s objection to the admission into evidence of the memorandum of oral decision from his August 18, 1986, deportation hearing. The memorandum, on letterhead of and signed by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), states: “This is a summary of the oral decision entered on August 18, 1986. This memorandum is solely for the convenience of the parties. If the proceedings should be reopened, the oral decision will be transcribed and will become the official decision in these proceedings.” The memorandum then…

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.