NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3545 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE CHAVES-LEIVA, also known as Jose Amando Chaves, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-17-cr-00247-001) District Judge: Hon. Gerald A. McHugh Argued: October 31, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and VANASKIE,* Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 20, 2019) * The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie retired from the Court on January 1, 2019, after the argument and conference in this case, but before the filing of the opinion. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) and Third Circuit I.O.P. Chapter 12. Christy Martin Jacob Schuman [ARGUED] Federal Community Defender Office For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellant Terri A. Marinari Robert A. Zauzmer [ARGUED] Office of United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellee _____________ OPINION _____________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Jose Chaves-Leiva filed this appeal to challenge his criminal conviction for illegal reentry after removal. Specifically, he appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he attempted to attack collaterally his 2008 removal order underlying the offense of conviction. Central to this appeal is the validity of a “Stipulated Request for Removal Order and Waiver of Hearing” (the “Stipulated Request”) signed by Chaves-Leiva while proceeding pro se. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that his waiver before the immigration court was voluntarily, This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 2 knowingly, and intelligently executed and entered the removal order. The District Court held a full hearing including testimony and rejected Chaves-Leiva’s arguments that the Stipulated Request he signed was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and concluded that his removal was not fundamentally unfair. We agree and will affirm the District Court’s denial of Chaves-Leiva’s motion to dismiss the indictment. I. Costa Rican native Chaves-Leiva has attempted to enter the United States without permission numerous times since the late 1990s. In 1999, he was apprehended at the border six times. After falsely claiming Mexican citizenship and providing at least two aliases and two different dates of birth, Chaves-Leiva was permitted, after those six unlawful entries, to return voluntarily to Mexico. Chaves-Leiva illegally entered the United States again some time before March 2001, when he married an American citizen in New Jersey. In 2007, Chaves-Leiva was charged in Ohio with attempted assault. In February 2008, he was arrested in Ohio again, charged with public intoxication, and transferred into the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). On February 29, 2008, Chaves-Leiva was served with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), typed in English, and a Notification of Rights (“NOR”), typed in Spanish, a language he could read and understand. The NOR informed Chaves-Leiva that he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals