USCA1 Opinion
September 26, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2236
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOSE ORTIZ-PEREZ A/K/A JOSE PEREZ, A/K/A JOHNNY RENDON,
A/K/A MARIO LOPEZ
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Ralph J. Perrotta on brief for appellant. _________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United State Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and __________________ __________________
Michael P. Iannotti, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for ___________________
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. On May 4, 1994, appellant Jose Ortiz-Perez __________
was indicted on one count of reentering the United States,
after having been deported, without having obtained
permission to reenter from the Attorney General, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On June 6, 1994, he moved to dismiss the
indictment. While Ortiz-Perez concedes that his reentry was
illegal, he claims that the government misled him concerning
his right to reenter and therefore should be estopped from
prosecuting him for his illegal reentry. After the motion
was denied, Ortiz-Perez entered an unconditional plea of
guilty. He now appeals the denial by the district court of
his motion to dismiss.
This court has held "with monotonous regularity that an
unconditional guilty plea effectuates a waiver of any and all
independent non-jurisdictional lapses that may have marred
the case's progress up to that point, thereby absolving any
errors in the trial court's antecedent rulings (other than
errors that implicate the court's jurisdiction)." United ______
States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 699 (1st Cir. 1994) ______ _______
(citations omitted). A claim of estoppel is an affirmative
defense, not a challenge to the court's jurisdiction. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(c). Therefore, by entering an unconditional
plea of guilty, Ortiz-Perez has waived any right to appeal
thedistrictcourt'sdenial ofhismotiontodismiss theindictment.1
The government's motion for summary affirmance is
granted. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. _______ ___
____________________
1. Even if appellant's claim had not been waived, we would
find it to be without merit.
-3-