U.S. v. Campos-Asencio

33 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Wilson

    884 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant's pistol was carried "in relation to" drug trafficking where, among other things, the defendant reached for his pistol when the police approached

    The Fifth and Sixth Amendments demand that a grand jury indictment set forth each essential element of an offense.Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-65, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046-48, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Campos-Ascencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1310 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 1453, 71 L.Ed.2d 665 (1982). The Sixth Amendment requires that every criminal defendant "be informed of the nature and cause of an accusation."

  2. Zavala-Flores v. United States

    Case No. 2:13-cv-00060-DN (D. Utah May. 8, 2015)

    Motion at 7. The citation Mr. Zavala-Flores provides for Campos Asencio is "(1987, ca5 Tex)." The correct citation is United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1987). The prosecution disagrees, arguing that "because immigration proceedings are civil in nature, and aliens are not entitled to an appointed attorney in their immigration hearings . . . the defendant cannot assert that a lack of representation by counsel at his immigration hearing violates due process.

  3. U.S. v. Cabrera-Teran

    168 F.3d 141 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 49 times
    Considering reference to statute insufficient to cure failure to include "arrest" in indictment for illegal reentry

    After a thorough review of the cases, we conclude that statutory citations may not stand in place of the inclusion of an element of the crime. The government quotes United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1987), for the proposition that "[a] statutory citation cannot, by itself, substitute for setting forth the elements of the crime, but a citation may reinforce other references within the indictment." Id. at 507.

  4. United States v. Diaz-Diaz

    135 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 1998)   Cited 51 times
    Finding that application note five made "the `seriousness of the aggravated felony' . . . an encouraged factor upon which a departure may be based"

    See Pemberton, 121 F.3d at 1169. See also United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294, 1297 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1987). 18 U.S.C. § 666 (1988).

  5. U.S. v. Torres-Sanchez

    68 F.3d 227 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 63 times

    While an alien has the statutory right to counsel at his own expense pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section(s) 1252(b)(2), there is no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel at a deportation hearing. United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1987). See also Acewicz v. United States Imm. Nat. Serv., 984 F.2d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 1993); Nazakat v. Immigration and Nat. Serv., 981 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1992).

  6. U.S. v. Vasquez-Olvera

    999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that subsection (b) is a sentence-enhancement provision and not a separate criminal offense

    Those elements are arrest, deportation, reentry to the United States, and lack of the attorney general's consent to reentry. See United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1987). Only after proof of the elements in subsection (a), do the punishment provisions for special types of offenders in subsection (b) apply.

  7. U.S. v. Wylie

    919 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 61 times
    Holding deletion of defendant's name from codefendant's indictment is harmless if defendant not misled prejudicially

    If the deletion of Wylie's name can be considered a failure of the indictment to state an essential element of the crime, see United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989), she might have a valid claim under rule 12(b)(2). See United States v. Campos-Ascencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1987). Such a failure to specify the nature of an offense may be raised at any time. The theory underlying this exception to rule 12(b)(2) is that failure to inform a defendant of the full nature of the charges against her may result in a deprivation of her fifth and sixth amendment rights.

  8. U.S. v. Prince

    868 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 81 times
    Finding no constitutional right to allocution

    When an indictment is challenged for the first time on appeal, only failure to charge an offense may be asserted because all nonjurisdictional defects are waived. United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1987); cf. United States v. Taylor, 814 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 818 F.2d 865, cert. denied, Taylor v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 186, 98 L.Ed.2d 138 (1987) (holding that a voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings). Generally in such cases, appellate courts review the indictment liberally in favor of the government, Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d at 508, and it will be held sufficient if "by any reasonable construction" it can be said to charge an offense.

  9. U.S. v. Saucedo-Velasquez

    843 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1988)   Cited 14 times
    Applying Fare to alien juvenile

    The Court, however, declined further to enumerate "which procedural errors are so fundamental that they functionally deprive the alien of judicial review, requiring that the result of the hearing in which they took place not be used to support a criminal conviction." ___ U.S. at ___, 107 S.Ct. at 2155 n. 17. See also United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1987). In this case appellant is claiming his due process rights were violated because he was a minor at the time of the deportation.

  10. Edwards v. Bowles

    No. 3:03-CV-2624-M (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2004)   Cited 4 times

    Like any other due process violation, petitioner must show actual prejudice from the denial. See Prichard-Ciriza v. INS, 978 F.2d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1992) (considering a failure to appoint counsel in an immigration context, and requiring the alien to "demonstrate prejudice which implicates the fundamental fairness of the proceeding" to succeed on a due process claim regarding the deprivation of the statutory right to representation); United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 510 (5th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that immigration petitioners must show prejudice to succeed on a due process right to counsel). Petitioner here has shown no prejudice from the failure to appoint counsel.