Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50372/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50372-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Gonzalez-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50372

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-58-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Gonzalez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving 

the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. 

Gonzalez-Ramirez asserts that the indictment was invalid because the removal 

order was void due to a defective notice to appear that failed to specify the date 

and time for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by 

* 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 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2020
No. 19-50372

2

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

filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 

(5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779), but he 

wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed a motion 

for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under PedrozaRocha and Pierre-Paul. Alternatively, the Government requests an extension 

of time to file a brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, we concluded that the notice to appear was not 

rendered deficient because it did not specify a date or time for the removal 

hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration 

court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza-Rocha could not collaterally attack his 

underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative 

remedies. 933 F.3d at 496-98. 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 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 is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2020