426 F. App'x 154
4th Cir.2011Background
- Juan Nicolas-Juan, an undocumented alien, was sentenced to 24 months and one day after jury convictions for misuse of a social security number, aggravated identity theft, and making a false statement.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no nonfrivolous issues but highlighting Nicolas-Juan’s equal-protection challenge to the removal-stay policy for criminal aliens.
- Nicolas-Juan was informed of his right to pro se supplemental briefing but did not file one.
- The panel found no reversible error and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court rejected Nicolas-Juan’s equal-protection argument, concluding the claimed disparity was not a valid basis for relief and that he was not shown intentional discrimination; the judgment was affirmed per curiam.
- Counsel was instructed to inform Nicolas-Juan of the right to petition the Supreme Court; per curiam disposition and lack of argued issues led to dispensing with oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the removal-stay policy violate equal protection? | Nicolas-Juan argues he is treated differently from non-criminal aliens. | Government contends criminals are not similarly situated to non-criminal aliens and there is no intentional discrimination. | No, equal protection claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (equal protection requires showing intentional discrimination among similarly situated persons)
- Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2001) (disparity must be justified under scrutiny; focuses on purposeful discrimination)