
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                 ____________________          No. 97-1062                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                    HIPOCRATE NAVEO-MORCELLO, A/K/A LUIS SANCHEZ,                                Defendant - Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                             Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                         and Pollak,** Senior District Judge.                                       _____________________                                _____________________               Merle Ruth  Hass, by  appointment  of the  Court, with  whom               ________________          Applegate, Valauskas & Rosen was on brief for appellant.          ____________________________               Kevin  O'Regan, Assistant United  States Attorney, with whom               ______________          Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney, was  on  brief  for          _________________          appellee.                                 ____________________                                  November 26, 1997                                 ____________________                                        ____________________          *  Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.          **    Of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  sitting   by          designation.                    HILL,  Senior   Circuit  Judge.     Defendant-Appellant                    HILL,  Senior   Circuit  Judge.                           _______________________          Hip crate Naveo-Morcello  appeals the district court s  denial of          his  motion to dismiss the  indictment, charging him with illegal          reentry after deportation,  in violation of 8 U.S.C.   1326.  The          district  court sentenced Naveo-Morcello  to fifty-one  months in          prison and three years  supervised  release.  His appeal is based          on the ground  that his prior deportation from  the United States          was unlawful.                    Under United States v. Mendoza-L pez,  107 S. Ct.  2148                          _____________    _____________          (1987), the  Supreme Court  held that  where a  defendant s prior          deportation  constitutes a critical element of his alleged crime,          and where  meaningful judicial  review of  that order is  denied,          then a  court must review  the prior  deportation order.   Id. at                                                                     __          2154-55.                    Here, in  a well-considered opinion, the district court          found that  Naveo-Morcello had  voluntarily and  knowingly waived          his right to judicial review.  It also found that his decision to          leave  the country  was  not  due  to  unconscionable  Government          conduct.  See,  e.g., United States v.  Vieira-Candelario, 6 F.3d                    ___   ____  _____________     _________________          12,  15 (1st  Cir.  1993).   It  concluded that  Naveo-Morcello s          collateral   attack  of  his  deportation  was  foreclosed  under          Mendoza-L pez.  We agree.          _____________                    We recognize  that court-appointed  counsel for  Naveo-          Morcello in this appeal  was presented with the  proverbial sow s          ear, from which, in brief and oral argument, she sought to make a                                         -2-          silk purse.  In spite of her commendable effort, that end was not          achieved.                    There  being no error,  the district court s  denial of          Naveo-Morcello s motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed.                    AFFIRMED.                    AFFIRMED.                                         -3-
