NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10412 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00332-CRB-1 v. JOSE LUIS ARTEAGA-CENTENO, AKA MEMORANDUM* Jose-Luis Arteaga-Centeno, AKA Jose Luis Arteaga-Velasquez, AKA Jose Artiaga, AKA Jose Luis Artiaga-Centeno, AKA Jose Luis Barrera, AKA Juan Carlos Elvir Barrera, AKA Carlos Dorre-Rodriguez, AKA Carlos Dorre-Rodriquez, AKA Jose Luis Velasquez-Centeno, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 1, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: SILER,** RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Jose Arteaga-Centeno appeals the district court’s order refusing to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reviewing de novo, United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm. 1. Arteaga-Centeno first argues that district court did not have jurisdiction to reconsider its dismissal of the indictment. We disagree. A district court has inherent power to reconsider its own order within the 30-day appeal period. United States v. Foumai, 910 F.2d 617, 620–21 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, the district court dismissed the indictment on January 8, 2019. That means the government had until February 8 to move for reconsideration. The government appealed on January 11, but then moved for reconsideration on February 1. The government was able to move for reconsideration notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal because of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. That rule allows “a timely motion . . . for relief that the [district] court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 37. Thus, the motion for reconsideration was timely because it was made pursuant to Rule 37 and within 30 days of the district court’s order dismissing the indictment. That the government dismissed its appeal instead of waiting for this court to remand, does not change that result. Because the reconsideration motion was made within 2 the relevant 30-day period, the district court had jurisdiction to grant it and reconsider its dismissal order. 2. Arteaga-Centeno next argues that his removal order was invalid and cannot form the basis of a conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Specifically, he argues that the Immigration Court’s jurisdiction never vested because his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) lacked the address of the immigration court where it was to be filed, as well as the time and place of his removal hearing, in violation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b)(6), and 1003.18(b). But this argument is foreclosed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals