Whether petitioner's conviction for 'illegal reentry' was supported by sufficient evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED wee ee Feri Toner contends Thal no reasonadb/e Jerer Co u/d had Zoumd guilty ot offense of ‘YC Cn ry" (nF Uni Zed S727, Wich was Sor Th e Following Vio /aiions. Where fetiTioner been cLalming “Innocence” JSix7h ConsTjJuFional fom endmenk [Et fective fissisdance of Coursey. . where defense Fria/-counsel Fell shor as described $ by The Ik far end. Where faj led Fo in vesTigale how SeZi7joner was velezsed a5 UnjJed SJases Ci7712€n trom Itch ae CorvecTionaf/ facility J e7i7Ioner was re/eased trom Jchae Cork 3,85 V-S.CrT2en by one LCE’s J pecie/ized agency C4 PLPD) whom are ad Torneys experts tn. CLT /2en Ship Zo Prevent Iz ersons Jie P eZ/7ioner Jo 62 Sez ined or removed. . LPD)sent an e-mail Jo [ickae F ac.sZaTing. Lease rémember Dha= Lhe below alien (Pe77iored will NOT be Faken thTo ICF c uslody as. he was deZermined Zo have deriyed V.S-C, (Aizen hip STALVES _LArough his adopted-fjrher. » . yFit: VA Consit7ional fnendmen7 Llbve /rocess) Where was un/a whily ; _ deported without a nal order by Fe, wiThowl d3Howed Jo received . _ decision by BLA, as Zhus deprived Por Wojca/ Review a7 proper | _ Crrevi7 lovr7 oF Appeals. Among ofher bue-Lrocess Vio /2Z0n5,0.9., DESL Oe Ge bicetF hy peat ot thing SF ALK En Court ips d.fth USE of OriscreTion. wheve PeTi7yaner presented a7 senJencing 2 naet Leen PAM Dhar Ws pollen snd Lec cwstver was granmee OF To serve 71me.