United States v. Felix Angel-Huerta
16-4117
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Felix Angel-Huerta, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2000, was convicted in California in 2006 of a crime ICE treated as an aggravated felony; ICE initiated expedited removal in 2007.
- ICE issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (NOI); Angel-Huerta signed the NOI and waived rights; ICE removed him to Mexico; he returned to the U.S. and was charged in 2016 with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- At a district-court evidentiary hearing on Angel-Huerta’s motion to dismiss (collateral attack on the 2007 removal), Angel-Huerta testified he was given no Spanish translation and was not informed of rights; ICE Officer Sandra Kroman (a native Spanish speaker) testified she explained the NOI in Spanish and followed routine procedures.
- The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the NOI and Kroman’s testimony undermined defendant’s claim that he received no process; the court refused a Sentencing Guideline obstruction enhancement because government did not show bad intent.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror (Juror 6) recounted a past contempt finding tied to an accusation of bias; defense asked to strike him for cause and to investigate state-court records; the court denied both requests and defense used a peremptory strike against Juror 6.
- Angel-Huerta appealed, arguing (1) the 2007 waiver was invalid because the Spanish translation/ explanation was rushed/incomplete and (2) denying the for-cause strike deprived him of equal protection in jury selection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of collateral attack on 2007 removal order (adequacy of translation/explanation) | Angel-Huerta: waiver invalid because NOI was not properly translated/explained (rushed/incomplete), rendering removal fundamentally unfair and entitling him to dismissal of §1326 indictment | Government: evidence (NOI indicating Spanish explanation, officer testimony, photo) shows translation/explanation occurred and satisfied regulatory requirements; defendant’s earlier claim was that he got no explanation at all | Waived on appeal: defendant changed factual theory (from no explanation to inadequate explanation); argument not preserved, so appellate court affirmed without reaching merits; would fail on merits because officer—a native Spanish speaker—adequately explained the NOI |
| Jury selection / equal protection (denial of motion to strike Juror 6 for cause) | Angel-Huerta: Juror 6’s statements reflect bias against different-nationality defendants; denial of for-cause strike denied him an impartial jury and equal protection | Government: no indication that any empaneled juror was biased; defendant cured alleged problem by using a peremptory strike against Juror 6 | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; using a peremptory to remove Juror 6 preserved defendant’s rights and no biased juror sat on the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila v. Att’y Gen., 826 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2016) (discusses aggravated-felony removals and expedited procedures)
- United States v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2013) (preservation rule: appellate argument must rest on same facts and legal rule presented below)
- United States v. Hodge, 870 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review for denial of juror-for-cause challenges)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory strikes can cure a for-cause denial and preserve impartial-jury rights)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (constitutional prohibition on racial/ethnic bias in jury deliberations)
- United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987) (recognizes collateral attack on prior deportation order in criminal proceedings)
- United States v. Charleswell, 456 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2006) (sets elements for a successful collateral attack under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d))