Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-18-06192/USCOURTS-ca10-18-06192-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freddy Herrera-Rivas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

FREDDY HERRERA-RIVAS, a/k/a Fredy 

Herrera, a/k/a Rubio Herrera, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 18-6192 

(D.C. No. 5:18-CR-00114-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ 

Freddy Herrera-Rivas pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States 

after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Herrera-Rivas later moved to withdraw his 

guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, contending his original removal order was 

invalid. The district court denied the motion to withdraw. Exercising jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 10, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 1
2 

BACKGROUND

Herrera-Rivas is a native and citizen of Mexico. On October 27, 2008, the 

United States Department of Homeland Security served Herrera-Rivas with a Notice 

to Appear (NTA), alleging he was subject to removal and ordering him to appear 

before an immigration judge (IJ) at a date and time “to be set.” R., Vol. 1 at 20. 

Herrera-Rivas signed the NTA, requesting an immediate hearing and waiving his 

right to a 10-day period before his appearance. Herrera-Rivas also signed a

“Stipulated Request for Order [and] Waiver of Hearing,” in which he confirmed that: 

(1) he had been served with the NTA; (2) he waived his right to a hearing and 

requested his proceedings be conducted on the record; (3) he admitted the facts as 

alleged in the NTA; (4) he conceded he was subject to removal; and (5) he did not 

wish to seek relief from removal. Id. at 43-46. On November 12, 2008, an IJ ordered 

his removal, and Herrera-Rivas was removed two days later. 

Herrera-Rivas returned to the United States in 2010 and was removed in 2012, 

without objection, based on the 2008 removal order. He returned to the United States 

again in 2013 and was indicted in 2018 of illegally reentering after removal in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Herrera-Rivas initially pleaded guilty but, six weeks 

later, moved to withdraw his plea on the ground “that an absolute defense to the 

Indictment had been overlooked.” Id. at 9. In a proposed motion to dismiss attached 

to the motion to withdraw, Herrera-Rivas sought to collaterally attack the validity of 

his 2008 removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Specifically, in his proposed 

motion to dismiss, Herrera-Rivas contended his 2008 removal order was void 

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 2
3 

because his 2008 NTA failed to specify a date and time for his appearance and, 

therefore, was defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The

district court denied the motion to withdraw, concluding that the proposed motion to 

dismiss lacked merit and that allowing Herrera-Rivas to withdraw his plea and file 

the proposed motion to dismiss would waste judicial resources. The court later 

entered its judgment and sentenced Herrera-Rivas to time served.

DISCUSSION

Herrera-Rivas’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree. 

A. Standard of Review

We review the “denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea . . . for abuse of 

discretion” and “will not reverse a district court’s decision unless the defendant can 

show that the court acted unjustly or unfairly.” United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 

764 F.3d 1248, 1259 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We 

review factual findings for clear error” and “legal conclusions de novo, such as 

whether the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily or whether counsel was 

ineffective.” Id.

B. Analysis

When a guilty plea has been accepted by the district court, “[a] defendant may 

withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing if he ‘can show a fair and just reason for 

requesting the withdrawal.’” Id. at 1258 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). In 

deciding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, a district court should consider: 

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 3
4 

“(1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence, (2) prejudice to the

government, (3) delay in filing [the] motion, (4) inconvenience to the court, 

(5) defendant’s assistance of counsel, (6) whether the plea is knowing and voluntary, 

and (7) waste of judicial resources.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the district court determined Herrera-Rivas could not “establish a fair 

and just reason for the withdrawal.” R., Vol. 1 at 104. In particular, the court found: 

(1) he waived any challenge to the 2008 NTA and the IJ’s jurisdiction to order his 

removal by stipulating to the allegations and seeking removal; and (2) Pereira

addressed a “narrow issue” and did not support invalidating the original removal 

order. Id. at 103-04. Because the court found no merit to the proposed motion to 

dismiss and because Herrera-Rivas did “not allege his innocence []or protest that his 

plea was not knowing and voluntary,” the court found “permitting him to withdraw 

his plea to file the motion would merely result in a wasting of judicial resources.” Id.

at 104. And because “[t]he remaining factors [did] not weigh heavily for or against 

permitting [him] to withdraw his plea,” the court concluded he had failed to carry his 

burden of demonstrating a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. Id.1

 1 The sole argument Herrera-Rivas advanced in his motion to dismiss was that 

the 2008 removal order was invalid based upon Pereira. Because the district court 

rejected the Pereira argument, and therefore determined a collateral attack on the 

2008 removal order would be futile, the court declined to address the statutory factors

for a collateral attack. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (prohibiting a collateral 

attack on a removal order unless the alien shows “(1) the alien exhausted any 

administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; 

(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived

the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was 

fundamentally unfair”). Herrera-Rivas has not contended the court erred in failing to 

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 4
5 

Herrera-Rivas contends the district court erred in determining there was not a 

fair and just reason for allowing him to withdraw his plea because: (1) his original 

NTA was invalid under Pereira because it failed to specify a date and time for the 

hearing; (2) the IJ, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to order his removal in 2008; and 

(3) “[b]ecause there was no valid removal order, [he] is not guilty as a matter of law 

of unlawful reentry as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).” Aplt. Opening Br. at 14. As 

our recent decisions confirm, the district court correctly determined that Pereira was 

inapposite and that Herrera-Rivas’s jurisdictional argument lacked merit.2

 

The Supreme Court held in Pereira that “[a] putative notice to appear that fails 

to designate the specific time or place of a non-citizen’s removal proceedings is not a 

‘notice to appear under section 1229(a), and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.’” 

138 S. Ct. at 2113-14. But as we recently explained in Lopez-Munoz v. Barr, 

941 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2019), Pereira addressed only the narrow question of 

“whether a defective notice to appear had interrupted a noncitizen’s continuous 

presence in the United States” for purposes of the “stop-time rule” under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(d)(1)(A) and “did not address the distinct question of whether a defect in the 

notice to appear would preclude jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.” 

Lopez-Munoz, 941 F.3d at 1018 (internal quotation marks omitted). We noted “other 

 

evaluate these factors, and therefore, has waived appellate review of this issue. 

See Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982, 998 (10th Cir. 2015). 

2 We therefore need not address the court’s conclusion that Herrera-Rivas also 

waived his Pereira-based jurisdictional challenge to his original removal order.

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 5
6 

circuits have declined to treat Pereira as a limitation on an immigration judge’s 

jurisdiction,” and we joined them “in declining to read Pereira as an implicit 

pronouncement on an immigration judge’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 1018. We since have 

“follow[ed] the lead of Lopez-Munoz and join[ed] the overwhelming chorus of our 

sister circuits that have . . . rejected similar Pereira-based challenges.” 

Martinez-Perez v. Barr, __ F.3d __, No. 18-9573, 2020 WL 253553, at *3 (10th Cir. 

Jan. 17, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). Moreover, we 

have clarified that “the requirements relating to notices to appear are 

non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rules.” Id.

Based on our decisions in Lopez-Munoz and Martinez-Perez, Herrera-Rivas’s 

“[r]eliance on Pereira is misplaced.” Lopez-Munoz, 941 F.3d at 1017. “While 

[his] notice to appear was defective” because it failed to specify a date and time to 

appear, “that did not divest the Immigration Court of jurisdiction.” Martinez-Perez, 

__ F.3d at __, 2020 WL 253553, at *3. Because Herrera-Rivas’s proposed motion to 

dismiss lacked merit, the district court properly found that permitting him to 

withdraw his plea and file the proposed motion to dismiss would waste judicial 

resources. Herrera-Rivas has not contested the court’s assessment of the other 

factors for permitting the withdrawal of a guilty plea. Accordingly, Herrera-Rivas 

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. 

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 6
7 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 18-6192 Document: 010110301882 Date Filed: 02/10/2020 Page: 7