United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50372
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:17-CR-58-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

William Gonzalez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving
the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.
Gonzalez-Ramirez asserts that the indictment was invalid because the removal
order was void due to a defective notice to appear that failed to specify the date
and time for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2020

No. 19-50372
2
United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert.
filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684
(5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779), but he
wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed a motion
for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under Pedroza-
Rocha and Pierre-Paul. Alternatively, the Government requests an extension
of time to file a brief.
In Pedroza-Rocha, we concluded that the notice to appear was not
rendered deficient because it did not specify a date or time for the removal
hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration
court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza-Rocha could not collaterally attack his
underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative
remedies. 933 F.3d at 496-98. Because the Government’s position “is clearly
right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2020