USA v. Celcio Perez-Villanueva, No. 09-50457 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-50457 D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03611-JM-1 v. MEMORANDUM * CELCIO JAVIER PEREZVILLANUEVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 6, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WARDLAW, Circuit Judge, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. Celcio Javier Perez-Villanueva appeals from his conviction for reentering the United States after a prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The motion to suppress was properly denied because, unlike the administrative rights given in United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 2002), Perez s consular rights, given to him before he was read his Miranda rights, did not contradict or undermine the Miranda rights. The record demonstrates that Perez s Miranda waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The Border Patrol Agent explained the significance of the Miranda rights to Perez, and clarified that [b]efore we ask you any questions you need to understand your rights. Perez never indicated any confusion or uncertainty. Moreover, Perez signed a written waiver, was read his rights in Spanish, his native language, and had prior experience with the American criminal justice system. See United States v. Gamez, 301 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus Perez s will was not overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000) (internal quotation mark omitted). 2 Perez concedes that his contention that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment is foreclosed by United States v. HernandezVermudez, 356 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2004). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
