Gilda Altagracia Abreu-Reyes, A.K.A. Gilda A. Desmith v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Gilda Altagracia Abreu-Reyes, A.K.A. Gilda A. Desmith v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

350 F.3d 966, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23829

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2003

Docket99-70542

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 350 F.3d 966 (Gilda Altagracia Abreu-Reyes, A.K.A. Gilda A. Desmith v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilda Altagracia Abreu-Reyes, A.K.A. Gilda A. Desmith v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 350 F.3d 966, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23829 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the mandate in this case is withdrawn. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.Sd 453, 460-61 (9th Cir. 1996) (reiterating that the authority of a Court of Appeals to recall its mandate exists as part of the court’s power to protect the integrity of its own processes).

Petitioner’s “Motion for Reinstatement of Petition for Review, Reconsideration and a Stay of Deportation Pending Resolution of Reconsideration,” filed on October 29, 2008, is construed as a Petition for Rehearing and is GRANTED.

The prior opinion issued in this case, published at 292 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.2002), is inconsistent with United States v. Coronar-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211-12 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (discussing use of pre-sentence reports for determining whether an alien is removable for having committed an aggravated felony), which was issued four days before the prior opinion. Because the en banc court’s opinion in Coronar-Sanehez takes precedence, the prior opinion in this case published at 292 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.2002) is WITHDRAWN.

We GRANT the original petition for review for the reasons stated in Corona-Sanchez and Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir.2003). The immigration judge was not authorized to use the pre-sentence report in determining whether petitioner was an aggravated felon for purposes of removal.

Petition GRANTED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the mandate in this case is withdrawn. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.Sd 453, 460-61 (9th Cir. 1996) (reiterating that the authority of a Court of Appeals to recall its mandate exists as part of the court’s power to protect the integrity of its own processes).

Petitioner’s “Motion for Reinstatement of Petition for Review, Reconsideration and a Stay of Deportation Pending Resolution of Reconsideration,” filed on October 29, 2008, is construed as a Petition for Rehearing and is GRANTED.

The prior opinion issued in this case, published at 292 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.2002), is inconsistent with United States v. Coronar-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211-12 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (discussing use of pre-sentence reports for determining whether an alien is removable for having committed an aggravated felony), which was issued four days before the prior opinion. Because the en banc court’s opinion in Coronar-Sanehez takes precedence, the prior opinion in this case published at 292 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.2002) is WITHDRAWN.

We GRANT the original petition for review for the reasons stated in Corona-Sanchez and Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir.2003). The immigration judge was not authorized to use the pre-sentence report in determining whether petitioner was an aggravated felon for purposes of removal.

Petition GRANTED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 F.3d 966, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilda-altagracia-abreu-reyes-aka-gilda-a-desmith-v-immigration-and-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack