Case: 19-50728 Document: 00515293684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 19-50728 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar January 31, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. SERVANDO JAVIER PARRA-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-1531-1 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Government appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging Servando Javier Parra-Murillo with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court determined that the notice to appear (NTA) that initiated the removal proceedings—which did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing—was defective and could not sustain a conviction for illegal reentry. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-50728 Document: 00515293684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 No. 19-50728 In United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), this court considered a challenge to the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss an indictment charging illegal reentry under § 1326 on the basis that the NTA was defective because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and the prior order of removal was thus void. Applying Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), this court reversed and remanded, concluding that the NTA was not deficient, that the subsequent service of a notice of hearing that included the date and time of the removal hearing cured any purported defect in the NTA, that the alleged deficiency did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that the defendant could not collaterally attack his removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98. The instant case is indistinguishable from Pedroza-Rocha. Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. 2 19-50728 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. United States v. Servando Parra-Murillo 31 January 2020 Non Direct Criminal Unpublished 8c58da5289cd7903417c10c641e1180c427d7c82
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals