United States v. Bencomo-Castillo’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.3d 1300 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2020
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Oklahoma Western District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. Santana-Castellano · United States v. Rivera-Ventura · United States of America v. Disantillo, Michele Romeo · United States v. Meraz-Valeta · Abeyta Martinez v. Chama Valley Independent School District No
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if an INS agent had performed a weekend jail check on or around March 23, 1996 [when Bencomo-Castillo was in the custody of local law enforcement], he probably would not have discovered Mr. Bencomo-Castillo’s status because Mr. Bencomo-Castillo used an alias. Agents pannot discover information about an alien giving a false name unless they check multiple computer indexes, including the Deportable Alien Control System (“DAGS”) and the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”). These systems are not checked during a routine screening unless the officer recognizes an alien as a prior deportee. Moreover, if the alien uses a new alias, the NCIC will not yield any information about him. Based on such evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the INS did not identify Mr. Bencomo-Castillo as a deported alien before June 5, 1997 [when the fingerprints were matched]. We also hold that INS agents had no legal duty under § 1326 to conduct a more exhaustive investigation of his criminal history.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither the plain language of the statute nor the relevant case law suggests that the 'found in' element of sec. 1326(a) requires the government to exercise more than reasonable diligence in screening for previously deported aliens.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the government must have 'knowledge of the illegality of his presence through the exercise of diligence typical of law enforcement authorities'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.