Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20361/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ameth Gutierrez-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20361

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AMETH GUTIERREZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-596-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ameth Gutierrez-Rodriguez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into 

the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the district 

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment; he reserved the right to 

appeal this ruling in his conditional guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(a)(2). 

Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Gutierrez-Rodriguez 

argues that his prior removal order was invalid because the notice to appear 

* 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

April 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20361 Document: 00515390787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2020
No. 19-20361

2

was defective for failing to include the date and time of his removal hearing. 

Gutierrez-Rodriguez therefore asserts that his prior removal could not support 

a conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326. He concedes that this challenge 

is foreclosed by 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 raises the issue 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. In the alternative, the 

Government requests an extension of time to file a brief.

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). The parties are correct that Gutierrez-Rodriguez’s 

arguments are foreclosed. See Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 492-98. 

Accordingly, 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 of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20361 Document: 00515390787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2020