United States v. Mendoza-Munguia

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50861
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES MENDOZA-MUNGUIA, also known as Andres Mendozamunguia,
also known as Andres Mendoza, also known as Andres Mungia-Mendoza, also
known as Andres Mungia, also known as Andres Munguia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-71-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Andres Mendoza-Munguia appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal
reentry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Mendoza-
Munguia entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to challenge the
district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. He was
sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. Although

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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
April 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50861 Document: 00515368354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2020

No. 19-50861
2
Mendoza-Mungia has been released from prison into the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, his appeal of his conviction is not
moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1998); United States v. Lares-
Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006).
On appeal, Mendoza-Munguia reiterates his district court argument that
his prior removal proceedings were invalid because the notice to appear that
initiated his removal proceeding was defective for failing to specify a place,
date, and time for his hearing. He reiterates also his district court arguments
that his removal proceeding was fundamentally unfair, the removal order was
void, and the Government failed to establish an essential element of the illegal
reentry offense under § 1326. Mendoza-Munguia concedes that his challenge
and the relief he seeks are foreclosed by precedent. See United States v.
Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov.
6, 2019) (No. 19-6588); Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-93 (5th Cir.
2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779). He raises his
challenge in order to preserve the issue for further review. The Government
has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue
is foreclosed by circuit precedent.
Agreeing with the parties, we conclude that the challenge Mendoza-
Munguia urges and the relief he seeks are foreclosed. See Pedroza-Rocha, 933
F.3d at 496-98; Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 689-93. We therefore GRANT the
motion for summary affirmance, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). The alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED as
unnecessary.

Case: 19-50861 Document: 00515368354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2020