USA v. Melvin Avelar-Castro, No. 15-30327 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30327 Document: 00513393834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30327 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 24, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. MELVIN JOSUE AVELAR-CASTRO, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14-CR-61-1 Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melvin Josue Avelar-Castro entered a conditional guilty plea (he reserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment) to illegally reentering the United States following deportation subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, Avelar contends he was deprived of his roommate’s testimony that officers entered their Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 15-30327 Document: 00513393834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2016 No. 15-30327 residence without his roommate’s consent because he was deported before Avelar was indicted. Citing United States v. Roque-Villanueva, the court ruled that even if, arguendo, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, evidence establishing Avelar’s guilt (evidence of his identity), is not suppressible. 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942, 943–44 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding defendant lacked standing to challenge the admissibility of his Alien File). Avelar maintains Roque-Villanueva was wrongly decided. He also asserts Pineda-Chinchilla violates the rule of orderliness because earlier case law permitted defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence despite lacking a possessory or privacy interest. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another panel in the absence of an intervening change in law or contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, Roque-Villanueva is binding precedent. Id.; 175 F.3d at 346. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
