21-1895 United States v. Dominguez-Bido 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 TO 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 5th day of October, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 21-1895 FELIX AGUSTIN DOMINGUEZ-BIDO, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, AKA FELIX DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: Darrell Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: Ni Qian (Michael D. Maimin, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on July 30, 2021, is AFFIRMED. Felix Agustin Dominguez-Bido appeals from a 2021 judgment of conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Dominguez-Bido moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the government would be unable to prove an essential element of the illegal reentry offense—his prior removal—because, he argued, the immigration court that ordered his deportation lacked jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, as well as his subsequent motions for reconsideration. Dominguez-Bido then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the decisions denying his motion to dismiss and his motions to reconsider. He was sentenced to time served. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We review de novo mixed questions of law and fact underlying a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment. See United States v. Daley, 702 F.3d 96, 99–100 (2d Cir. 2012). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), a defendant “may not challenge the validity of the deportation order” underlying the alleged illegal reentry offense unless: (1) the defendant “exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order”; (2) “the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the [defendant] of the opportunity for judicial review”; and (3) “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). A defendant must satisfy these prerequisites …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals