TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Lara Soto

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eliezer Lara SOTO, Appellant

United States v. Soto, 106 F.3d 1040 (1st Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 12, 1997
Docket
No. 96-1855
Judges
Stahl, Aldrich, Campbell
Citations
106 F.3d 10401997 WL 493281997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2301

Opinion — Aldrich

BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. ■ Defendant Eliezer Lara Soto (hereinafter defendant), a citizen of the Dominican Republic, unlawfully entered the United States in 1986. He was deported in November 1993. He subsequently obtained a visa and reentered in August 1994 without having obtained the necessary permission of the Attorney General, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 .

1

After a three day jury trial, defendant was found guilty.

I.

Prior to trial, defendant moved to quash or dismiss the indictment by attacking the earlier deportation order entered after a hearing in his absence, on the ground of lack of notice. According to the defendant, he failed to receive either of two letters sent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordering him to appear first on December 1, 1992 and again on January 5, 1993. The court denied the motion, finding that certified mail notice had been given -to defendant’s proper .address with the return receipt bearing his signature, which the court found genuine. Nor would he have had any defense on the merits. We agree that the deportation order was valid.

II.

Defendant’s only other defense to the present prosecution was his testimony that he entered in good faith, believing that his visa .constituted the required permission. The court instructed the jury that it was not, and that good faith was not a defense.

The district court noted that .of all the circuits considering this statute, only the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Anton, 683 F.2d 1011, 1014 (7th Cir.1982) (2-1) required the government to show.specific intent. We are more impressed with dissenting Judge Posner’s thinking that an alien who has broken our laws once should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

See id.

at 1019-22 (collecting cases). It is appropriate that the reentry law have teeth. The appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

1

. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326 provides that an offense against the United States occurs when:

(a) [A]ny alien who— (1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter (2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously excluded and deported, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act....

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1997: 11998: 11999: 22000: 12001: 32003: 12011: 12021: 119972026peak 2001 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Ramon Gonzalez-Chavez122 F.3d 15 (8th Cir. 1997)
  2. United States v. Placido Cabral, Etc.252 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2001)
  3. United States v. Guzman-Ocampo236 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2000)
  4. United States v. Guillermo Carlos-Colmenares253 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2001)
  5. United States v. Sierra-Ledesma645 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2011)
  6. United States v. Sergio Alberto Ortegon-Uvalde, A.K.A. Sergio Garcia-Leal179 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1999)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Florentino-Rosario19 F.4th 530 (1st Cir. 2021)
  2. United States v. Sierra-Ledesma645 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2011)
  3. United States v. Vasconcelos71 F. App'x 863 (1st Cir. 2003)
  4. United States v. CabralNo. 00-1068 (1st Cir. June 12, 2001)
  5. United States v. Placido Cabral, Etc.252 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2001)
  6. United States v. Guillermo Carlos-Colmenares253 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2001)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Rolf Wilhelm Otto Anton, 683 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir. 1982) 44

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list