Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-20-50018/USCOURTS-ca5-20-50018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hugo Noe Jimenez-Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-50011

Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 20-50018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUGO NOE JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-188-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-858-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Noe Jimenez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following 

removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals the denial of his motion to 

dismiss the indictment. He also appeals a separate revocation judgment but 

raises no challenge to the revocation of his supervised release.

* 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

June 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50018 Document: 00515447216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
No. 20-50011

c/w No. 20-50018

2

As to his illegal reentry conviction, Jimenez-Gonzalez maintains that his 

order of removal was defective—and, thus, his removal was void—because the 

notice to appear did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing; he 

suggests that the invalidity of his removal precludes it from being used to 

support his illegal reentry conviction. Further, he asserts that he may attack 

collaterally his removal order under § 1326(d) because the insufficiency of the 

notice to appear invalidated the removal proceeding and excused him from 

having to establish administrative exhaustion and deprivation of judicial 

review and rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Jimenez-Gonzalez 

acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by United States v. PedrozaRocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2020 WL 2515686 (U.S. May 

18, 2020) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), 

cert. denied, 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No. 19-779), and indicates 

that he raises the issues to preserve them for further review.

The Government agrees that the issues are foreclosed by Pedroza-Rocha

and Pierre-Paul and has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. 

Alternatively, 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). In Pierre-Paul, this court determined that a notice to 

appear that omits the date, time, or place of a removal hearing is not defective 

and, in any event, the defect would not be jurisdictional. 930 F.3d at 689-93. 

Applying Pierre-Paul, this court in Pedroza-Rocha concluded that the notice to 

appear was not deficient, that the purported deficiency would not deprive the 

immigration court of jurisdiction, and that the defendant had to exhaust his 

administrative remedies before he could collaterally attack his removal order. 

Case: 20-50018 Document: 00515447216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
No. 20-50011

c/w No. 20-50018

3

933 F.3d at 496-98. Therefore, the arguments that Jimenez-Gonzalez has 

asserted on appeal are foreclosed. See Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98; 

Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 689-93.

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. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50018 Document: 00515447216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2020