US v. Smith, 09-1443, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, money laundering, concealment of information from the Social Security Administration, and making false statements, and sentence of ninety-two months’ imprisonment.  In vacating the conviction, the court remanded the matter as, given the district court’s failure to meet the requirements of Rule 11(b)(1)(N) and the fundamental nature of the underlying right at issue, the plea agreement’s appellate waiver does not preclude defendant from challenging on direct appeal the district court’s alleged denial of his right to counsel of his choice.  Further, the defendant is entitled to have his guilty plea vacated as district court erroneously denied defendant his constitutional right to his choice of defense counsel, and under Gonzalez-Lopez, defendant is not required to prove that he was prejudiced by the violation.

 

Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder, 09-1465, concerned a Mexican citizen’s petition for review of a removal order.  In denying in part and dismissing in part, the court held that the IJ did not err in denying petitioner’s motion to suppress Form I-213.  The court rejected petitioner’s claim that the IJ demonstrated bias and irreverence of a degree sufficient to deprive him of due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment as without merit.  Also, because petitioner did not provide any evidence of legal status, the IJ appropriately found petitioner to be a removable alien.  Lastly, the BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider his case.

Related Resources:

  • Full text of Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder, 09-1465
  • Full text of US v. Padilla, 09-1896
  • Full text of US v. Smith, 09-1443

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules