18‐680‐pr Superville 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 9th day of May, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x NEKEBWE SUPERVILLE, Petitioner‐Appellant, v. 18‐680‐pr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent‐Appellee. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x FOR PETITIONER‐APPELLANT: VINOO P. VARGHESE, Varghese & Associates, P.C., New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT‐APPELLEE: MARCIA M. HENRY, 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, New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Petitioner‐appellant Nekebwe Superville appeals pursuant to a certificate of appealability issued March 6, 2018, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.). The certificate of appealability certified two issues for appeal: (1) ʺ[w]hether petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendmentʺ; and (2) ʺ[w]hether petitionerʹs constitutional claim was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.ʺ Appʹx at 360. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. Superville is not a United States citizen. In May 2013, he was arrested for participating in a drug trafficking organization. He retained attorney Howard Greenberg and agreed to cooperate with the government. Before pleading guilty, Superville received warnings in the plea agreement and from the magistrate judge and district judge that his conviction would have immigration consequences. It is ʺundisputed that Superville understood that he ʹcouldʹ be deported as a result of his guilty plea.ʺ S. Appʹx at 10. On February 18, 2014, Superville ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals