In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16-4046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERGIO MARGUERITO ZACAHUA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 13-cr-576-3 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 — DECIDED OCTOBER 8, 2019 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Sergio Zaca- hua requests that we vacate his guilty plea because the district court failed to inform him of the potential immigration conse- quences of his plea, as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(O) requires. The government concedes, and we agree, that the district court failed to give Zacahua this admonish- ment. But because Zacahua does not demonstrate a 2 No. 16-4046 reasonable probability that, had the district court provided this warning, he would not have pleaded guilty, we affirm. I Zacahua, a citizen of Mexico, has lived as an unauthorized alien in the United States for over 20 years. Although he was employed as a scrap worker and in the kitchen at Hilton ho- tels, Zacahua also transported heroin for a drug trafficking or- ganization. In 2013, Zacahua and five codefendants were in- dicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for conspiracy to distribute heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. On July 23, 2013, during Zacahua’s bond hearing, the gov- ernment invoked Zacahua’s immigration status to support their argument that he was a serious flight risk. The govern- ment explained: Importantly, he is admittedly an undocu- mented alien and a citizen of Mexico. This in- creases the risk of flight for this defendant be- cause he has significantly less ties here and strong ties to Mexico. Additionally, now that he’s arrested, even if he were not convicted, he faces the likelihood of removal from the United States to Mexico. And thus, he must surely be questioning why he would stay in the United States to face a potentially long prison term only to end up in Mexico at the end of the day. In ordering Zacahua’s detention, the court highlighted his risk of deportation: “I give some credence to the government’s argument that Mr. Zacahua really doesn’t have any incentive to stick around if he’s going to be deported anyway.” No. 16-4046 3 On March 22, 2016, the district court held a change of plea hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The district court advised Zacahua that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. The district court also informed Zacahua of the many rights he would give up by pleading guilty and some of the potential conse- quences of a felony conviction. But the district court never told Zacahua that he may be removed from the United States and denied admission in the future as a consequence of his guilty plea, as Rule 11(b)(1)(O) requires, and neither the pros- ecutor nor defense counsel prompted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals