United States v. Gilberto Cowo, a/k/a SEALED

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1499
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
GILBERTO COWO, a/k/a SEALED DEFENDANT 27,
a/k/a EL TORO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Carmen R. De Jesus on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-
Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas F.
Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for
appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

November 20, 2001
Per Curiam. Gilberto Cowo, a citizen of Belize,
appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress all statements and evidence obtained from him at
the time of his arrest on the ground that he was not
informed at that time of his right to consular notification,
pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261,
1967 WL 18349 (ratified November 24, 1969) (the “Vienna
Convention”). Cowo seeks to have his conviction vacated and
to be deported to Belize or, in the alternative, to have the
case remanded for the district court to make a determination
of whether he was prejudiced by the failure to be informed
of his right to consular notification.
We need not decide whether the failure to inform
Cowo at the time of his arrest of his right to consular
notification violated the Vienna Convention. The district
court did not err in denying Cowo’s motion to suppress.
This court recently held in an en banc decision that
“irrespective of whether or not the [Vienna Convention]
create[s] individual rights to consular notification, the
appropriate remedies do not include suppression of evidence
or dismissal of the indictment.” United States v. Li, 206

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956
(2000). Cowo argues that Li was wrongly decided. “Even if
we assume, for argument’s sake, that in some extraordinary
circumstance a panel might be warranted in declaring an
earlier en banc decision obsolete and refusing to follow it,
the appellant has offered no adequate justification for
applying such a long-odds exception here.” Stewart v. Dutra
Constr. Co., Inc., 230 F.3d 461 (1st Cir. 2000).
Gilberto Cowo’s conviction and sentence are
affirmed. See Loc.R. 27(c).

-- 3 of 3 --