Case: 18-50953 Document: 00515271732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-50953 January 14, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. EDGAR ALFREDO-VALLADARES, also known as Edgar Jose-Ardon, also known as Edgar Lopez, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17-CR-156-1 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Government appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging Edgar Alfredo-Valladares with a single count of illegal reentry after prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court found that the notice to appear filed in the underlying removal proceedings was a deficient charging document because it failed to identify a date or time for the removal hearing. The district * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-50953 Document: 00515271732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 No. 18-50953 court determined that the immigration court consequently lacked jurisdiction to issue a valid order of removal and, thus, the Government could not prove an element of an offense under § 1326. In United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 496-98 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588) (announced after the district court decided this case), we reversed the district court’s order dismissing an illegal-reentry indictment on the ground that the order of removal was void because, as in this case, the notice to appear did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing. Applying Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 688-90 (5th Cir. 2019), we concluded that the notice to appear was not deficient, that the alleged deficiency would not deprive an immigration court of jurisdiction, and that the defendant had to exhaust his administrative remedies before he could collaterally attack his removal order. 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 18-50953 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. United States v. Edgar Alfredo-Valladares 14 January 2020 Non Direct Criminal Unpublished 8604d4a44cc440dc749bba9ebbd012248dcf1bdc
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals