United States v. Lett, No. 18-749 (2d Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Notwithstanding a district court's release order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (BRA), the government has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to detain a criminal defendant who is an alien in the course of an administrative removal proceeding.
The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an indictment against defendant with prejudice. The court held that the district court's bail release order under the BRA did not preclude the government from detaining defendant under the INA as an inadmissible alien subject to removal. The court found defendant's arguments to the contrary unavailing.
Download PDF
18 749 cr United States v. Lett United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 August Term, 2019 (Argued: October 17, 2019 Decided: December 12, 2019) Docket No. 18 749 cr _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. KESTON LETT, Defendant Appellee. _____________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ Before: WINTER, POOLER, and PARK, Circuit Judges. The United States appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J.) dismissing an indictment against Keston Lett with prejudice. Notwithstanding a district court’s release order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, the government has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to detain a criminal defendant who is an alien 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 in the course of an administrative removal proceeding. Therefore, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions for the district court to reinstate the indictment. DAVID LIZMI, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York, for Appellant. S. ISAAC WHEELER, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, New York for Defendant Appellee. Park, Circuit Judge: 16 This case presents the question whether a district court’s authority to 17 release criminal defendants under the Bail Reform Act (“BRA”) is inconsistent 18 with the government’s authority to detain aliens under the Immigration and 19 Nationality Act (“INA”). The district court found that these two statutes are in 20 conflict and that a release order pursuant to the BRA precludes the government 21 from detaining a criminal defendant pursuant to the INA. We conclude that 22 there is no conflict between the detention and release provisions of the two 23 statutes, and we hold that immigration authorities may lawfully detain a 24 criminal defendant ordered to be released under the BRA pursuant to their 25 authority under the INA to detain aliens seeking admission into the United 2 1 States who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” for 2 removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, we VACATE and 3 REMAND with instructions for the district court to reinstate the indictment. I 4 5 Keston Lett is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago who was arrested at John F. 6 Kennedy International Airport after United States Customs and Border 7 Protection (“CBP”) allegedly found 2.12 kilograms of cocaine in his suitcase. 8 CBP paroled Lett into the United States for criminal prosecution and transferred 9 him to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and the government filed a 10 criminal complaint charging Lett with importing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 11 §§ 952(a), 960. That same day, a magistrate judge ordered that Lett be detained 12 pending trial pursuant to the BRA, but granted leave for Lett to renew his bail 13 application at a later date. Meanwhile, United States Immigration and Customs 14 Enforcement (“ICE”) lodged an immigration detainer against him. A grand jury 15 later returned a two count indictment charging Lett with importing cocaine and 16 possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 17 841(a). 3 1 At a status conference, Lett renewed his application for pretrial bail. The 2 government argued that Lett was a flight risk given his limited relationship to 3 the United States, but the district court ordered his release. The government did 4 not appeal this ruling and agreed to release Lett from BOP custody. Pursuant to 5 the detainer ICE had lodged against him, BOP transferred Lett to the custody of 6 the Department of Homeland Security, who moved him to an ICE detention 7 facility in New Jersey. Shortly afterwards, ICE initiated removal proceedings 8 against Lett, serving him with a “Notice to Appear” in immigration court. The 9 “Notice to Appear” alleged that Lett was an inadmissible alien subject to 10 11 removal as a controlled substance trafficker. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i). Lett filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in his criminal case, arguing 12 that his continued detention by ICE violated the BRA. The district court heard 13 oral argument on Lett’s motion and ordered the government to release Lett 14 within a week “if it intended to proceed with the prosecution.” App’x at 89. The 15 district court concluded that, under the BRA, the government had “to either 16 decide to prosecute a defendant such as Mr. Lett or proceed with removal 17 proceedings to deport him, one or the other.” App’x at 83. One week later, the 18 government submitted a letter to the district court explaining that ICE would not 4 1 release Lett from custody. In response, the district court issued an order 2 dismissing the indictment with prejudice. This appeal followed. II 3 4 5 “We review conclusions of law and questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). 6 A 7 “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional 8 enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co existence, it is the duty of 9 the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to 10 regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974). Here, there 11 is no statutory conflict between the detention and release provisions of the BRA 12 and the INA. 13 Congress enacted the BRA to address “the way federal courts consider bail 14 applications and the circumstances under which bail is granted.” United States v. 15 Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 742 (1987). Pursuant to the BRA, if a judicial officer, after a 16 hearing, “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably 17 assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other 5 1 person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the 2 [defendant] before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). 3 Separately, Congress enacted the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., which 4 provides that an alien seeking admission into the United States “shall be 5 detained” pending removal proceedings unless that alien is “clearly and beyond 6 a doubt entitled to be admitted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); see also United States v. 7 Vasquez Benitez, 919 F.3d 546, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (noting that the INA authorizes 8 the detention of aliens during removal proceedings “to facilitate [their] removal 9 from the country”). 10 The BRA and the INA thus serve different purposes, govern separate 11 adjudicatory proceedings, and provide independent statutory bases for 12 detention. There is no conflict between the detention and release provisions of 13 the two statutes. The government’s authority to detain an alien pursuant to the 14 INA “does not disappear merely because the U.S. Marshal cannot detain him 15 under the BRA pending his criminal trial.” Vasquez Benitez, 919 F.3d at 553. A 16 district court’s conclusion that a person is not a flight risk or a danger to the 17 community under the BRA has no bearing on whether that individual can 18 demonstrate that he is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to 6 1 the United States under the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Similarly, a person’s 2 release from detention pursuant to the INA would have no bearing on a district 3 court’s decision to detain him pursuant to the BRA. 4 We therefore conclude, as the Third, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits have recently 5 held, that the BRA does not preclude the government from exercising its 6 independent detention authority under the INA. See United States v. Soriano 7 Nunez, 928 F.3d 240, 247 (3d Cir. 2019) (holding that “there is no textual conflict 8 between the BRA and the INA,” and that “criminal and removal processes can 9 proceed simultaneously”); Vasquez Benitez, 919 F.3d at 553 (“Congress has never 10 indicated that the BRA is intended to displace the INA.”); United States v. Veloz 11 Alonso, 910 F.3d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[N]othing in the BRA prevents other 12 government agencies or state or local law enforcement from acting pursuant to 13 their lawful duties.”). 14 The district court below, joining several other district courts in our Circuit 15 and around the country, held to the contrary that pretrial release under the BRA 16 forecloses detention under the INA. See, e.g., United States v. Boutin, 269 F. Supp. 17 3d 24 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Trujillo Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. 18 Or. 2012); United States v. Ventura, No. 17 cr 418, 2017 WL 5129012 (E.D.N.Y. 7 1 Nov. 3, 2017); United States v. Galitsa, No. 17 cr 324, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185550 2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017). The district court reasoned that the government was 3 required to choose whether it wished “to prosecute a defendant such as Mr. Lett 4 or proceed with removal proceedings to deport him, one or the other.” App’x at 5 83; see also Trujillo Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 1179 (“[T]he Executive Branch has a 6 choice to make. It may take an alien into custody for the purpose of removing or 7 deporting that individual or it may temporarily decline to do so while criminal 8 proceedings are maintained against that person.”); Ventura, 2017 WL 5129012, at 9 *2 (“[T]he Executive branch should decide where its priorities lie: either with a 10 prosecution in federal district court or with removal of the deportable alien.”). 11 But neither the BRA nor the INA precludes the government from 12 exercising its detention authority pursuant to the other statute. Nor can the 13 courts order the Executive Branch to choose between criminal prosecution and 14 removal. As the Sixth Circuit observed, “[r]eading the BRA’s permissive use of 15 release to supersede the INA’s mandatory detention does not follow logically nor 16 would doing so be congruent with our canons of statutory interpretation.” Veloz 17 Alonso, 910 F.3d at 270. The BRA and the INA authorize the government to 18 pursue both criminal prosecution and removal simultaneously, and there is no 8 1 conflict between the detention and release provisions of the two statutes. The 2 district court’s bail release order under the BRA thus did not preclude the 3 government from detaining Lett pursuant to the INA as an inadmissible alien 4 subject to removal. B 5 6 Lett’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. 7 First, Lett argues that the BRA takes precedence over the INA. He points 8 to section 3142(d) of the BRA, which provides that, if a judicial officer determines 9 that a defendant “may flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 10 community” and is “not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for 11 permanent residence,” then 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 such judicial officer shall order the detention of such person, for a period of not more than ten days, . . . and direct the attorney for the Government to notify the appropriate . . . official of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If the official fails or declines to take such person into custody during that period, such person shall be treated in accordance with the other provisions of this section, notwithstanding the applicability of other provisions of law governing release pending trial or deportation or exclusion proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d). Lett argues that this provision provides ICE with one, 23 exclusive avenue for taking custody of criminal defendants, reflecting Congress’s 9 1 understanding that “criminal prosecution generally takes priority over removal, 2 unless the government elects otherwise” during the ten day statutory period. 3 Appellee’s Br. at 9–10. Any other interpretation, he contends, would render the 4 statutory ten day period “meaningless.” Id. at 32. 5 This argument misconstrues section 3142(d). The ten day period is a 6 limitation on the district court’s authority to release a defendant pursuant to the 7 BRA. It has no bearing on the government’s authority to detain a defendant 8 pursuant to the INA at a later date. Section 3142(d) is primarily a “notice 9 provision designed to give other agencies an opportunity to take custody of a 10 defendant before a BRA release order is issued.” Soriano Nunez, 928 F.3d at 246; 11 see also id. (“By providing these other agencies an opportunity to take custody of 12 such persons, the BRA effectively gives respect to pending cases and allows 13 those officials to act before bail is set in the federal case.”). “The BRA’s 14 temporary detention scheme thus reflects Congress’ recognition that 15 immigration authorities . . . have separate interests.” Id. It does not “give[] a 16 district court the authority to compel another sovereign or judge in federal 17 administrative proceedings to release or detain a defendant.” Id. 10 1 Lett’s emphasis on the final clause of section 3142(d) is similarly 2 misplaced. The BRA states that, if an Immigration and Naturalization Service 3 official fails to take custody of an alien criminal defendant during the ten day 4 statutory period, the defendant “shall be treated in accordance with the other 5 provisions of this section, notwithstanding the applicability of other provisions of law 6 governing release pending trial or deportation or exclusion proceedings.” 18 7 U.S.C. § 3142(d) (emphasis added). But this does not preclude the government 8 from detaining a defendant under the INA; it merely clarifies that “the presence 9 of an ICE detainer and the threat of potential removal alone are not sufficient to 10 deny BRA pretrial release.” Soriano Nunez, 928 F.3d at 245 n.4. In other words, 11 the district court must apply the BRA as it would to any other criminal 12 defendant, notwithstanding the existence of any parallel proceedings. Indeed, 13 the “notwithstanding” clause supports our conclusion that the INA remains 14 “applicab[le]” to defendants who are released under the BRA after the close of 15 the ten day statutory period. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d)(2). 16 Second, Lett asserts that detention pursuant to the INA is not mandatory 17 and that the government could have exercised its discretion to extend his parole 18 into the United States until the conclusion of his criminal case. Even assuming 11 1 that the government could have extended Lett’s parole, however, it was under 2 no obligation to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing the Secretary of 3 Homeland Security with discretion to return paroled aliens to ICE custody 4 “when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the [Secretary of 5 Homeland Security], have been served”). As explained above, the INA plainly 6 authorizes the government to detain an alien seeking admission into the United 7 States in the course of administrative removal proceedings, regardless of the 8 alien’s bail status in any parallel criminal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1225(b)(2)(A). 10 Third, Lett contends that ICE is barred from deporting criminal defendants 11 during the pendency of their criminal cases—and therefore from detaining such 12 defendants under the INA—pursuant to its own regulations. See 8 C.F.R. 13 §§ 215.2(a), 215.3(g) (together, providing that “[n]o alien” “who is . . . a party to[] 14 any criminal case under investigation or pending in a court in the United States” 15 “shall depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States.”). But these 16 regulations merely prohibit aliens who are parties to a criminal case from 17 departing from the United States voluntarily; they do not affect the government’s 18 authority to deport such aliens pursuant to final orders of removal. See, e.g., 12 1 United States v. Ailon Ailon, 875 F.3d 1334, 1339 (10th Cir. 2017) (referring to 8 2 C.F.R. § 215.2(a) as governing “voluntary departure”). This interpretation is 3 confirmed by the remainder of section 215, entitled “Controls of Aliens 4 Departing from the United States,” 8 C.F.R. § 215, which is separate from the 5 regulations governing “Removal of Aliens Ordered Removed,” id. § 236. See, e.g., 6 id. § 215.2(a) (requiring immigration officers to issue a “written temporary order 7 directing [the alien] not to depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States”); 8 id. § 215.4(a) (providing for a hearing at which the alien can contest the denial of 9 his departure); id. § 215.6 (providing for a parallel framework for aliens who 10 “seek[] to depart” from the territories of the United States); id. § 215.8 11 (contemplating eligibility for reentry into the United States for departing aliens, 12 subject to certain “departure requirements”). 13 Finally, Lett contends that the government’s decision to initiate 14 administrative proceedings and to detain him pursuant to the INA was 15 pretextual and intended to secure his appearance in the criminal case. But the 16 district court did not address this issue, and Lett argued below that it did not 17 need to do so. Accordingly, Lett’s pretext argument is waived, and we need not 18 address it. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 13 1 2008) (“It is a well established general rule that an appellate court will not 2 consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”) (internal quotation marks 3 and alterations omitted). III 4 5 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, 6 and we REMAND with instructions for the district court to reinstate the 7 indictment against Lett. 14
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
