Background

• Defendant Martin Rubio-Munoz was convicted after a bench trial for illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and had supervised-release violations revoked arising from a prior conviction.
• Rubio collaterally attacked the predicate expedited removal orders, claiming the expedited removal proceedings deprived him of due process and therefore § 1326 could not be sustained.
• The district court denied Rubio’s motion to dismiss the indictment, finding no due-process violation in the expedited removal interviews and crediting the interviewing officers’ testimony and records.
• On appeal Rubio challenged only the third prong of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d): that the underlying removal order was “fundamentally unfair” (i.e., a due-process violation that caused prejudice).
• The appellate panel reviewed de novo the legal denial of the motion to dismiss and for clear error the district court’s factual findings, and concluded the court reasonably credited the officers’ account.
• The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding Rubio failed to show a due-process violation or resulting prejudice from the expedited removal process.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 791 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for § 1326(d) dismissal based on denial of due process)
• United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining § 1326(d) requirements and that certain expedited removals afford no review)
• United States v. Leon-Leon, 35 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1994) (defendant bears burden to show deportation proceedings violated due process and caused prejudice)
• Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2001) (clear-error standard explained)