17-2353-cr United States v. Carrasco UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 3rd day of July, two thousand nineteen. Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 17-2353-cr LUIS ALEX CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Lawrence V. Carra, Mineola, N.Y. Carl Irace, East Hampton, N.Y. Appearing for Appellee: Charles P. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney (Amy Busa, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the matter be and it hereby is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Defendant-Appellant Luis Alex Carrasco appeals from a June 28, 2017, judgment of conviction pursuant to a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.) on the grounds that he did not knowingly and willingly plead guilty to a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) because his counsel was ineffective.1 Specifically, Carrasco argues that his counsel in the district court was ineffective because he failed to warn Carrasco that, because he is not a U.S. citizen, pleading to a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) subjected him to mandatory deportation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. We apply a two-prong test to determine whether counsel was ineffective: “[A] defendant must show that counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and that he was prejudiced as a result.” Jae Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1964 (2017) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). Carrasco argues that his counsel in the district court, John Wallenstein, provided him with representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that, “when the deportation consequence” of entering a guilty plea “is truly clear,” counsel must give her client “correct advice” as to what the consequence of entering a guilty plea is. 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). The immigration consequence of Carrasco’s guilty ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals