United States v. Ruiz-Gutierrez , 118 F. App'x 765 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4419
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GERARDO RUIZ-GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-03-272)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate
Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, Karen B. George, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gerardo Ruiz-Gutierrez pled guilty to one count of
unlawful reentry into the United States after removal in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2000). He reserved the right to challenge
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment
based on his collateral attack of the underlying order of removal,
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (2000). In addition, Ruiz-Gutierrez
seeks to challenge the one-year term of supervised release imposed
on him at sentencing.
In the context of a prosecution for illegal reentry after
removal, a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal
order by showing: (1) he has exhausted his administrative remedies
to challenge that order; (2) the removal proceedings improperly
deprived him of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry
of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); United
States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987). All three of these
conditions must be satisfied in order for such an attack to
succeed. United States v. Wilson, 316 F.3d 506, 609 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1025 (2003). This court conducts a de novo
review of the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the
indictment. United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir.
2002). We hold that the district court was correct in denying the
motion to dismiss, as Ruiz-Gutierrez fails to show that the removal
order was obtained under conditions that were fundamentally unfair.
- 2 -
Ruiz-Gutierrez’s argument to the contrary is patently frivolous.
In view of this holding, we need not address the argument that his
counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived Ruiz-Gutierrez of the
opportunity for judicial review of the removal order.
Ruiz-Gutierrez also asserts that the one-year term of
supervised release, imposed on him by the district court to follow
the six-month sentence of imprisonment, is invalid because the
Supreme Court’s rationale in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531(2004), will invalidate the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§
3551 et seq. (West 2000 & Supp. 2004). In our ruling in United
States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004), petition for cert.
filed, 73 U.S.L.W. 3121 (U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No. 04-193), we held
that Blakely “does not affect the operation of the federal
sentencing guidelines.” Therefore, we reject Ruiz-Gutierrez’s
challenge to his sentence.
We affirm Ruiz-Gutierrez’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -