17-3429 United States v. Ortega-Arreta 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 Court’s 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 “Summary Order”). 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 29th day of October, two thousand eighteen. Present: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, VICTOR A. BOLDEN, District Judge.* United States of America, Appellant, v. 17-3429-cr Felipe Ortega-Arrieta, Defendant-Appellee. For Appellee: STEVEN D. CLYMER, Assistant United States Attorney, for Grant C. Jaquith, United States * Victor A. Bolden, United Stated District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY. For Defendant-Appellant: JAMES EGAN, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, NY. Appeal from a judgment entered October 23, 2017, in the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. The government appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing the one-count indictment charging defendant-appellee Ortega-Arrieta with unlawful reentry on the ground that it was filed more than five years after the limitations period had begun to run. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the arguments presented on appeal, which we describe only as necessary to explain our decision to vacate and remand. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of statutes. See United States v. Williams, 733 F.3d 448, 452 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Interpretations of statutes are pure questions of law, and we therefore review de novo Williams’s claim that he was ‘found in’ the United States in 2002 within the meaning of sections 1326(a) and (b)(2).”). The district erred in ruling that the indictment was untimely. Our 2013 decision in United States v. Williams, 733 F.3d 448 squarely governs this case. In Williams, we noted two elements are required for an alien to be “found in” the United 2 States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). First, authorities must “discover the illegal alien in the United States.” Id. at 453 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, law enforcement must “know, or with the exercise of diligence typical of law enforcement authorities could have discovered, the illegality of his presence.” Id. We noted that the second requirement—that the illegality was known or should have been known to federal authorities—was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals