Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20393/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20393-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Horacio Gutierrez-Murillo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20393

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HORACIO GUTIERREZ-MURILLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-563-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Horacio Gutierrez-Murillo appeals his conviction for illegally reentering 

the United States after being removed. He challenges the district court’s 

denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues that the indictment 

was invalid because the prior removal order was void due to a defective notice 

to appear that failed to specify a time and date for his removal hearing. He 

concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-

* 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

February 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20393 Document: 00515301994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
No. 19-20393

2

93 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779), and 

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

filed (U.S. Nov. 12, 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 under Pierre-Paul and 

Pedroza-Rocha. Alternately, the Government requests an extension of time to 

file a brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, this court applied Pierre-Paul to conclude that the 

notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date for 

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

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

notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 

Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98. Gutierrez-Murillo’s arguments are, as he 

concedes, 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 Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20393 Document: 00515301994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020