Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50572/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50572-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ciro Cruz-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50572

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

CIRO CRUZ-LOPEZ, also known as Juan Pablo, also known as 

Mario Garica-Gonzales, also known as Mario Gonzales, also known as Juan 

Pablo Mendoza, also known as Juan Mendoza, also known as Ciro 

Lopez-Cruz, also known as Rufino Garcia, also known as Mario 

Gonzales-Garcia, also known as Alberto Garcia-Garcia, also known as Cruz 

Cruz, also known as Victor Peiro-Pablo, also known as Mario Gonzalez, also 

known as Juna Mendoza-Pablo, also known as Mario Garcia,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 5:18-CR-784-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50572 Document: 00515298762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
No. 19-50572

2

Ciro Cruz-Lopez appeals his conviction of illegal reentry into the United 

States following removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to 

dismiss the indictment. He contends that the indictment was invalid because 

the removal order was void for defective notice to appear that failed to specify 

the date and time for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue 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 wishes to preserve it for further review. The government moves for 

summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under PedrozaRocha and Pierre-Paul.

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496−98, this court applied Pierre-Paul to 

conclude that the notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did 

not specify a date or time 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 underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. As Cruz-Lopez concedes, his arguments 

are 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 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 is AFFIRMED.

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 19-50572 Document: 00515298762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020