Skip to main content

Mexican citizen receives federal jail term for illegal re-entry

HARTFORD, Conn.-A citizen of Mexico was sentenced Thursday to 30 months in jail followed by two years of supervised release for illegally re-entering the United States following his deportation in a case investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO).

Rutilio Cabrera-Flores, 30, formerly of New Britain, Conn., appeared in federal court in Hartford, where he was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny.

"This case sends a clear message that criminal aliens who illegally re-enter the United States will face criminal prosecution for flagrantly disregarding our laws," said Jim Martin, acting field office director of ICE ERO in New England. "It should also serve as a warning to others contemplating re-entering this country illegally following their deportation that eventually they will get caught."

According to court records, on August 19, 2009, Cabrera-Flores was deported to Mexico following his March 2009 conviction in Connecticut Superior Court in New Britain for strangulation in the second degree.

On October 17, 2009, Cabrera-Flores illegally re-entered the U.S. in Arizona and was encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. He was removed to Mexico that same day.

Cabrera-Flores was arrested in New Britain in February 2010 and was later convicted in Connecticut Superior Court of larceny in the third degree. He is currently serving a 25-month state sentence.

Prior to his re-entry into the U.S., he had not sought or obtained the permission of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to re-apply for admission into the U.S., which is required by law. In February 2011, Cabrera-Flores pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful presence in the U.S.

The sentence was announced by David B. Fein, U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more