United States v. David Lazo-Romero

552 F. App'x 634
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 9, 2014
Docket12-50466
StatusUnpublished

This text of 552 F. App'x 634 (United States v. David Lazo-Romero) 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
United States v. David Lazo-Romero, 552 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant David Francisco Lazo-Romero appeals his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm. Even if the delay in Lazo- *635 Romero’s presentment to the magistrate was unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances of the case, see Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009); United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2009), any error was harmless. It is less probable than not that such error materially affected the verdict. United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.2002).

Even without Lazo-Romero’s post-Mi randa, pre-arraignment confession, an abundance of evidence supported the verdict that Lazo-Romero knowingly and illegally re-entered the United States. Border Patrol agents discovered Lazo-Romero three miles north of the border, in a desolate area in rough terrain, at night, carrying a backpack, and moving north. He attempted to avoid detection by hiding in brush. Immediately after being discovered, he admitted to being a national of El Salvador without permission to enter or remain legally in the United States. He had a lengthy immigration history, which included previous deportation. The government has met its burden to show a “fair assurance of harmlessness,” and that any error was harmless. Seschillie, 310 F.3d at 1214 (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Corley v. United States
556 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Emerson Seschillie
310 F.3d 1208 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Garcia-Hernandez
569 F.3d 1100 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
552 F. App'x 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-lazo-romero-ca9-2014.