United States v. Ramirez-Aguilar
| Decision Date | 15 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2994.,71-2994. |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 486 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel RAMIREZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Noreen K. Saltveit, of Marmaduke, Aschenbrenner, Merten & Saltveit, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant.
Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Jack C. Wong, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL, BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Angel Ramirez-Aguilar appeals his conviction, following a nonjury trial, for being found in the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.
After appellant had been found in the United States on September 7, 1971, but before the prosecution from which he now appeals had been begun, deportation proceedings were instituted against him. On September 8, 1971, he was issued a notice of hearing in those deportation proceedings and was released after he posted an appearance bond. He now contends that his release on the bond constituted "consent" to his presence in the United States, so as to bar or estop the subsequent 8 U.S.C. § 1326 prosecution.
We disagree. The only "consent" manifested was that appellant remain at large in lieu of being taken into custody pending his hearing. As such, it had no relation whatsoever to the crime with which he was subsequently charged.
Appellant next argues that the deportation proceedings instituted against him, and the deportation order issued on October 19, 1971, as a result of those proceedings, constituted former jeopardy for the same offense for which he was later prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He therefore contends that the subsequent criminal prosecution was barred under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree.
This court has held that proceedings held solely for the purpose of deportation are not criminal proceedings, do not place the alien in peril of life or limb, and therefore do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution. Bridges v. United States, 199 F.2d 811, 828 (9th Cir. 1952), reversed on other grounds, 346 U.S. 209, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 97 L.Ed. 1557 (1953); Bridges v. Wixon, 144 F. 2d 927, 936 (9th Cir. 1944), reversed on other grounds, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S. Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945). We therefore conclude that the prosecution for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 was not barred by the prior deportation proceedings in this case.
Finally appellant attacks the sentence imposed upon him, contending that it was imposed for an impermissible reason.1
The matter of sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court, and not reviewable by an appellate court so long as the sentence falls within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cluchette
...sentences and as a general rule will not disturb them as long as they fall within the bounds prescribed by statute. United States v. Ramirez-Aguilar, 455 F.2d 486 (CA9 1972); United States v. James, 443 F.2d 348 (CA9 EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES (5) Citing Charles v. United States, 215 F.2d 825, ......
-
U.S. v. Moreno
...is within the bounds prescribed by statute. United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1369 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Ramirez-Aguilar, 455 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1972). In this case, the sentences were long, but well within the trial judge's discretion. The defendants were large dealers i......
-
United States v. Rebon-Delgado, 71-3015.
...admitted because it was "evidence of another crime" is without merit. Deportation is not a crime. Cf. United States v. Ramirez-Aguilar, 455 F.2d 486, 487 (9th Cir. 1972). 8. The jury was instructed that when a warrant of deportation is outstanding and the accused leaves the United States of......
-
U.S. v. Dewald
...is not subject to review. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); United States v. Ramirez-Aguilar, 455 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1972). And only if the sentencing court abused its discretion shall an appellate court overturn a denial of a motion to re......