Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20525/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eduardo Hernandez Castellanos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20525

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ CASTELLANOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-592-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Hernandez Castellanos appeals his conviction for illegal 

reentry into the United States. He entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving 

the right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the 

indictment. The district court sentenced him to 12 months and one day of 

imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Although Hernandez

Castellanos is not presently incarcerated for the instant conviction, his appeal 

* 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 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20525 Document: 00515298747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
No. 19-20525

2

of his conviction is not moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998); 

United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006).

Hernandez Castellanos argues, as he did in the district court, that his 

prior removal was invalid because it followed a defective notice to appear that 

failed to specify a date and hearing time. He further contends that he may 

collaterally attack the removal proceeding without exhausting his 

administrative remedies. He concedes that his arguments are 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 he explains that he has raised the 

arguments to preserve them for further review. The Government has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issues are 

foreclosed under Pedroza-Rocha. The Government, alternatively, requests an 

extension of time to file its 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). Hernandez Castellanos’s arguments are indeed 

foreclosed. See Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98; see also Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684, 688-93 (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, 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: 19-20525 Document: 00515298747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020