Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50382/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50382-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Urbano Baz-Bautista
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50382

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

URBANO BAZ-BAUTISTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-79-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Urbano Baz-Bautista appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the 

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the district court’s 

denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment as invalid, arguing that his 

initial removal order was void because the notice to appear in the initial 

removal proceedings failed to specify a time and date for his removal hearing. 

He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 

* 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: 19-50382 Document: 00515293359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 19-50382

2

F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for 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 by Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 

2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779).

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

appear was not deficient for failing to specify a date and time for the hearing, 

that any such deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, 

and that the petitioner could not collaterally attack his notice to appear 

without first exhausting administrative remedies. Thus, as Baz-Bautista 

concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See id. 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 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: 19-50382 Document: 00515293359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020