United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1341 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Elmer Joel Espinal lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: January 17, 2020 Filed: April 15, 2020 ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Elmer Espinal appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court1 sentenced him to time served with no supervised release to follow. On appeal, Espinal challenges the denial of his 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it violated the Speedy Trial Act and that it was predicated on an invalid removal order.2 Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. On August 5, 2004, Espinal, a citizen of Honduras, was arrested for assault in Wichita Falls, Texas. After his sentence was discharged, he falsely claimed to immigration authorities that he was a Mexican citizen and was allowed to voluntarily depart to Mexico on October 6, 2004. On October 20, 2004, immigration authorities found Espinal at a ranch in Texas. They later served Espinal with, among other things, a notice to appear (NTA) and released him on his own recognizance. The NTA ordered Espinal to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) at a listed Texas address and at a date and time to be set. Another form provided to Espinal indicated that he did not give a phone or address where he could be contacted. Espinal was also directed to meet with a deportation officer on the third Wednesday of each month, but he failed to do so. On January 25, 2005, an IJ ordered Espinal removed from the United States to Honduras. The IJ found that Espinal was not present at the hearing, that no reasonable cause was provided for his failure to appear, and that a notice of hearing was not given to Espinal because he failed to notify the court of his address. The IJ held an in absentia hearing on removability. Because Espinal was not present, the IJ found that Espinal failed to meet any applicable burden of proof or show eligibility for any relief that would prevent his removal from the United States. On February 9, 2005, a warrant for removal was issued. 2 We note that this case has factual and legal similarities to United States v. Ricardo Macias Saucedo, No. 19-1693. Espinal raises similar arguments to the defendant-appellant in that case. -2- Espinal was later arrested in San Marcos, Texas, but it appears that he absconded to Kansas. Espinal was then arrested for assault in Lawrence, Kansas in August 2007. On September 21, 2007, he was removed from the United States pursuant to the February 2005 warrant for removal. In March 2013, Espinal was arrested and detained ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals