NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 17-3239 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL GEORGE BROWN, a/k/a Choley McKenzie a/k/a Choley Brown a/k/a Daniel Brown Daniel George Brown, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. PA No. 2-16-cr-00234-001) District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 2, 2018 Before: SHWARTZ, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 3, 2018) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. FISHER, Circuit Judge. Daniel George Brown appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to dismiss his indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) and claims that the District Court violated certain of his rights during its proceedings. We will affirm the District Court. I. Brown, a native of Jamaica, entered the United States in 1992 as a non-immigrant visitor with permission to stay for six months; however, Brown unlawfully remained in the United States for years. Between 1992 and 2016, Brown was convicted of numerous crimes and removed from the United States on two separate occasions. As detailed below, Brown illegally re-entered the United States shortly after each removal. In 1995, Brown was convicted in Pennsylvania state court for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver 62.5 grams of marijuana and sentenced to one year probation. Over the next couple of years, Brown was arrested and convicted multiple times for drug-related offenses and fraudulent schemes. Following these convictions, INS commenced a removal proceeding, during which Brown proceeded pro se and confirmed that he understood the risk of removal and his right to be represented by counsel. After finding him removable, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an order of removal (the “1997 Order”) and advised Brown of his right to appeal. Brown had the choice to either reserve his right to file an appeal or to accept the 2 judge’s opinion as a final order; Brown “accept[ed] the decision”1 and was removed to Jamaica. Brown unlawfully re-entered the United States and was arrested for bank fraud and illegal re-entry. He pled guilty to both crimes and received a fifty-one-month sentence, after which his removal order was administratively reinstated and he was again removed. Brown re-entered the United States and, in 2016, was again charged with illegal re-entry after removal. Brown received a public defender, but chose to file a pro se motion to dismiss the indictment,2 which the District Court denied. He then accepted a conditional plea and waived his appellate rights, with limited exceptions. One such exception permitted Brown to appeal the District Court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, as he does here. II. We have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review the sentence imposed on Brown. The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals