Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20378/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan De Dios Trevino-Villarreal
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20378

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN DE DIOS TREVINO-VILLARREAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-565-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan De Dios Trevino-Villarreal appeals his conviction for illegal reentry 

into the United States. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion 

to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his indictment was invalid because the 

prior order of removal was void, as the notice to appear did not specify a time 

and date for his removal hearing. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed 

by United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20378 Document: 00515310886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2020
No. 19-20378

2

cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), but he wishes to preserve it for 

further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under Pedroza-Rocha. 

Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties 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). Alternatively, the Government requests an extension of 

time to file its brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98, we held that the notice to appear 

was not deficient merely because it did not specify a date for the hearing, any 

such purported deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of 

jurisdiction, and the appellant could not collaterally attack his notice to appear 

without first exhausting his administrative remedies. Trevino-Villarreal’s

arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed by this case. See id.

Accordingly, 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 of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20378 Document: 00515310886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2020