United States v. Soto-Mateo
948 F. Supp. 2d 77
D. Mass.2013Background
- Defendant Lenny Fernando Soto-Mateo is charged with Unlawful Reentry of a Removed Alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- In 2007, a person claiming to be Carlos Manuel Ramos-Trinidad applied for a U.S. passport; application rejected and defendant identified.
- Defendant pled guilty to False Statements in a Passport Application (18 U.S.C. § 1542), False Claim of Citizenship (18 U.S.C. § 911), and Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) and was sentenced on counts I–III.
- After release, defendant was removed to the Dominican Republic; his deportation order was reinstated in 2009 during ICE proceedings.
- In 2010, defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry under the reinstated order and was sentenced to 15 months; subsequently removed again.
- In 2012, ICE encountered defendant in Massachusetts and charged him under the then-pending indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant can collaterally attack the removal order under 1326(d) | Soto-Mateo did not exhaust administrative remedies. | Exhaustion should be excused or waived due to invalid waiver of rights. | Defendant failed to exhaust, so cannot collaterally attack the order. |
| Whether the waiver of appeal was knowing and intelligent | Waiver was explicit and informed in both English and Spanish. | Waiver could be non-knowing/intentional under certain circumstances. | Waiver was knowing and intelligent; no exception to exhaustion. |
| Whether exhaustion failures render the indictment invalid | Exhaustion prong unmet bars collateral attack on removal order. | Exhaustion should be excused to challenge removal. | Indictment not dismissed on exhaustion grounds. |
| Should the court address other prongs of 1326(d) if exhaustion fails | Court need not reach other prongs when first prong fails. | Other prongs could still render relief. | Court need not reach other prongs. |
| Impact on the indictment if deportation order cannot serve as basis for illegal reentry | Indictment remains valid absent proper collateral attack. | Indictment defective if removal order invalid as basis. | Indictment remains valid; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luna v. United States, 436 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 2006) (three-prong exhaustion test for collaterally challenging removal orders)
- DeLeon v. United States, 444 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (explicit waiver of appeal can constitute exhaustion)
- Martinez-Rocha v. United States, 337 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2003) (waiver knowing and intelligent when advised in multiple languages)
- Stokes v. United States, 124 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 1997) (facially valid indictment generally merits trial on the merits)
- Guerrier v. United States, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (explanation of indictment sufficiency and related standards)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1974) (standards for indictments and notice to defend against charges)
- Whitehouse v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of R.I., 53 F.3d 1349 (1st Cir. 1995) (supervisory power over grand jury proceedings is limited)
- United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (1st Cir. 2010) (context of knowing and intelligent waivers in deportation proceedings)
- United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (explicit waiver of appeal and expedited removal as not seeking review)