U.S. v. Sanchez

Decision Date03 October 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-2163,89-2163
Citation923 F.2d 236
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Miguel SANCHEZ, Defendant, Appellant. . Heard
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Joel D. Landry, Providence, R.I., for defendant, appellant Sanchez.

Margaret E. Curran, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Lincoln C. Almond, U.S. Atty., Providence, R.I., was on brief, for appellee.

Before CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge, TIMBERS, * Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Miguel Sanchez pled guilty to possessing more than 100 grams of heroin for distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, and to conspiring to distribute and to possess, for distribution, more than 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) and 846. On each charge appellant was given a concurrent sentence of five years in prison, the statutory minimum, and a four-year supervised release term. The sentencing court conditioned appellant's supervised release terms as follows:

Upon release from confinement, it is order[ed] that the defendant is to be deported in accordance with 18 U.S.C. [Sec.] 3583(d)[ ].

Sanchez argues, and the government agrees, that the quoted condition of supervised release is invalid if interpreted to mean that Sanchez is to be deported without a deportation hearing. We agree. 1

The district court imposed the challenged condition of supervised release as permitted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

If an alien defendant is subject to deportation, the court may provide, as a condition of supervised release, that he be deported and remain outside the United States, and may order that he be delivered to a duly authorized immigration official for such deportation.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d). As subsection 3583(d) provides no indication of a contrary legislative design, we read its language in pari materia with the provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. See 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction Secs. 51.02, 51.05 (Sands 4th ed. 1984). Thus, subsection 3583(d) simply permits the sentencing court to order, as a condition of supervised release, that "an alien defendant [who] is subject to deportation" be surrendered to immigration officials for deportation proceedings under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In other words, following appellant's surrender to Immigration authorities, he is entitled to whatever process and procedures are prescribed by and under the Immigration and Naturalization Act for one in appellant's circumstances, for the purpose of determining whether he is "an alien defendant ... subject to deportation."

The district court judgment entails no derogation of appellant's procedural rights, nor does it arrogate any executive power vested in the Attorney General to determine appellant's deportability. It merely directs that appellant be made available, following confinement, for such deportation proceedings as are contemplated by and under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In addition, as expressly authorized by subsection 3583(d), the court lawfully directed that appellant, if deported, remain outside the United States.

Thus, contrary to appellant's contention, there is no need to remand for resentencing for the limited...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • US v. Concepcion
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 16, 1992
    ...order that he be delivered to a duly authorized immigration official for such deportation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); see United States v. Sanchez, 923 F.2d 236, 237 (1st Cir.1991) (statute "simply permits the sentencing court to order, as a condition of supervised release, that `an alien defenda......
  • U.S. v. Oboh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 8, 1996
    ...and Naturalization Service (INS) to receive process in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act. See United States v. Sanchez, 923 F.2d 236 (1st Cir.1991). Since Chukwura, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that se......
  • U.S. v. Qadeer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • January 29, 1997
    ...also held that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) does not vest the federal judiciary with the power to deport alien-defendants. United States v. Sanchez, 923 F.2d 236, 237 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Kassar, 47 F.3d 562, 568 (2nd Cir.1995); United States v. Xiang, 77 F.3d 771, 772 (4th The Eleventh ......
  • U.S. v. Phommachanh, 95-3248
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • July 26, 1996
    ...States v. Kassar, 47 F.3d 562, 568 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Ramirez, 948 F.2d 66, 68 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Sanchez, 923 F.2d 236, 237 (1st Cir.1991) (per curiam); whereas the Eleventh Circuit has held that it does; see United States v. Chukwura, 5 F.3d 1420, 1423 (11th Cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT