USA v. Jose Sanchez-Reyez


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-40593 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: CES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 05/16/2012 for Appellant Jose Ivan Sanchez-Reyez [11-40593]

Download PDF
Case: 11-40593 Document: 00511835412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-40593 Summary Calendar April 25, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE IVAN SANCHEZ-REYEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-982-1 Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Jose Ivan Sanchez-Reyez was convicted by a jury on one count of being an alien found in the United States after being deported following an aggravated felony conviction. The district court sentenced him to 30 months in prison to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. SanchezReyez appealed his conviction. In his opening brief, Sanchez-Reyez asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, but he subsequently withdrew the * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-40593 Document: 00511835412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2012 No. 11-40593 contention. The only issue for appeal is his argument that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose that the fingerprint taken at the time of his deportation in 2010 was not legible. Under the Brady rule, the government must turn over impeachment and exculpatory evidence to the defense. United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 418 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 285 (2010). We review Brady claims de novo. Id. The fingerprint in question was part of government exhibit 4, the warrant of removal/deportation executed in 2010. Sanchez-Reyez does not contend that either the warrant or the fingerprint contained therein was withheld, rather, he asserts that the fact that the fingerprint was not legible was withheld until his trial. He has not established reversible error because he has not shown that the information that the fingerprint was smudged and illegible was either favorable or material to his defense. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?