United States v. Esteban Bahena-Cardenas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a “warrant of deportation is non-testimonial . . . because it is simply a routine, objective, cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter”
• holding “that [a] warrant of deportation is nontestimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation, and because it is simply a routine, objective, cataloging of an unambiguous 3 United States v. Harcrow, No. 07-0135/MC factual matter”
• “We hold that the warrant of deportation in this case is nontestimonial and thus admissible. Accordingly, the government provided sufficient evidence of physical removal.”
• a “warrant of deportation is non-testimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation, and because it is simply a routine, objective, cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).