U.S. v. Baptist

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment on charge of being unlawfully present in U.S. after having been removed, even though defendant argued that his 1998 removal violated his due process rights since said removal was based on stipulated removal order that defendant signed without assistance of counsel or opportunity to appear before IJ. No due process violation occurred where stipulated removal order was drafted in defendant’s native language and contained clear waiver of counsel clause, as well as several acknowledgments that defendant was aware of his rights. Moreover, there is no requirement that defendant/alien be represented by counsel or that stipulated removal order be explained to him. Fact that defendant did not read stipulated removal order prior to signing it did not render removal order involuntary.