Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50806/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50806-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Fraire-Castaneda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50806

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO FRAIRE-CASTANEDA, also known as Armando Fraire, also 

known as Armondo Fraire, also known as Armando Castanedo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-151-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Fraire-Castaneda appeals his conviction for illegal reentry 

following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Fraire-Castaneda challenges 

the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Specifically, 

he contends that the initial notice to appear in his removal proceedings was 

defective, his removal was thus invalid, and it could not be used to support his

* 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

March 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50806 Document: 00515343981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2020
No. 19-50806

2

illegal reentry conviction. Additionally, Fraire-Castaneda asserts that he is 

excused from satisfying the § 1326(d) requirements for collaterally attacking 

his removal order.

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, arguing 

that the issues are foreclosed by circuit precedent. Alternatively, the 

Government requests an extension of time to file its brief. Fraire-Castaneda 

opposes the Government’s motion asserting that his arguments are not 

foreclosed. 

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). Contrary to Fraire-Castaneda’s assertions, the 

arguments he raises on appeal are foreclosed by United States v. PedrozaRocha, 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).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its appellate 

brief is DENIED.

Case: 19-50806 Document: 00515343981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2020