Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50728/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50728-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Servando Javier Parra-Murillo
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50728

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SERVANDO JAVIER PARRA-MURILLO,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-1531-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Government appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging 

Servando Javier Parra-Murillo with illegal reentry after deportation in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court determined that the notice to 

appear (NTA) that initiated the removal proceedings—which did not specify a 

date and time for the removal hearing—was defective and could not sustain a 

conviction for illegal reentry.

* 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

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50728 Document: 00515293684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 19-50728

2

In United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2019), 

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), this court considered a 

challenge to the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss an indictment 

charging illegal reentry under § 1326 on the basis that the NTA was defective 

because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and the prior 

order of removal was thus void. Applying Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 

(5th Cir. 2019), this court reversed and remanded, concluding that the NTA 

was not deficient, that the subsequent service of a notice of hearing that 

included the date and time of the removal hearing cured any purported defect 

in the NTA, that the alleged deficiency did not deprive the immigration court 

of jurisdiction, and that the defendant could not collaterally attack his removal 

order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 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.

Case: 19-50728 Document: 00515293684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020