USA v. Dora Cantu Chapa, No. 09-40217 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 30, 2010.
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-40217 Summary Calendar November 23, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DORA OLGA CANTU CHAPA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CR-1591-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dora Olga Cantu Chapa appeals her guilty plea conviction for transporting an undocumented alien for private financial gain by means of a motor vehicle, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. She first argues that her guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing because her counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise her that it was a foregone conclusion that she would be deported if she pleaded guilty. Cantu Chapa does not allege that counsel affirmatively misrepresented the deportation consequences of her guilty * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. No. 09-40217 plea; she alleges only that counsel failed to research the deportation consequences of her plea and to warn her that her removal was a virtual certainty. She contends that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) has rendered deportation a virtual certainty in some cases, such as her case, and that deportation should be deemed in such cases to be a direct consequence of pleading guilty. Cantu Chapa alternatively requests adoption of a new rule providing that a defendant s guilty plea is unknowing where the defendant is unaware that deportation is a virtually certain consequence of pleading guilty. These arguments are foreclosed by Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 333-36 (5th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 15, 2009) (No. 08-9888). Absent an en banc or intervening Supreme Court decision, one panel of this court may not overrule a prior panel s decision. United States v. Rodriguez-Jaimes, 481 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2007). Because this court is bound by its precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court case or a subsequent en banc decision, the grant of certiorari in Padilla v. Kentucky, 129 S. Ct. 1317 (2009), has no effect on the disposition of this matter. See In re Brown, 457 F.3d 392, 395 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Cantu Chapa was informed by the magistrate judge (MJ) at rearraignment that Cantu Chapa more likely would be deported back to Mexico. Cantu Chapa also contends that the MJ and district court committed reversible error by failing to advise her of (1) her right to be represented by counsel, appointed if necessary, at trial and every other stage of the proceedings, see F ED. R. C RIM. P. 11(b)(1)(D), and (2) her right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, see F ED. R. C RIM. P. 11(b)(1)(E). Plain error review applies to this issue. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Cantu Chapa has not shown, as required by United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004), that these errors affected her substantial rights. 2 No. 09-40217 * * * The judgment of the district court is 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.
