19‐1524‐pr Rojas v. United States 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 COURTʹS 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 ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). 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 19th day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x CRISTIAN ROJAS, Petitioner‐Appellant, ‐v‐ 19‐1524‐pr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x FOR PETITIONER‐APPELLANT: RHIDAYA TRIVEDI (Ronald L. Kuby, on the brief), Law Office of Ronald L. Kuby, New York, New York. FOR APPELLEE: JARED LENOW, Assistant United States Attorney (Richard Cooper and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Petitioner‐appellant Cristian Rojas appeals the district courtʹs order entered May 16, 2019, denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his judgment of conviction. On April 3, 2015, Rojas pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance ‐‐ MDMA (or ecstasy) ‐‐ in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and on September 26, 2018, the district court sentenced Rojas to time served. On appeal, Rojas contends that his § 2255 motion should have been granted because the district court violated the Fifth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when it informed him that he is ʺlikely to be deportedʺ and that deportation ʺmay be mandatoryʺ as a consequence of his guilty plea. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 2 DISCUSSION I. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires the court, during a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals