Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-1834 U.S. v. Lopez-Flores,

By: dmc-admin//December 31, 2001//

01-1834 U.S. v. Lopez-Flores,

By: dmc-admin//December 31, 2001//

Listen to this article

“All the courts to address the question have held that at least in the case of surreptitious reentry, as in this case, the ‘found in’ offense is first committed at the time of the reentry and continues to the time when he is arrested for the offense. … This is clearly correct. Section 1326(a) punishes entering, attempting to enter, and being found in the United States after being deported. We think ‘found in’ must have the force of ‘present in’ rather than ‘discovered by the INS to be in.’ The date of discovery has no significance so far as culpability is concerned, though it may bear on the running of the statute of limitations. See United States v. Gomez, supra, 38 F.3d at 1035. It would be passing odd to say that Lopez had violated the statute when he entered but then was free of further criminal culpability until he was discovered by the INS.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Posner, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests