Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50474/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Roberto Yepez-Valencia
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50474

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ROBERTO YEPEZ-VALENCIA, also known as Jose Roberto Yepez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-3615-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Roberto Yepez-Valencia appeals his conviction for illegal reentry, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He stipulated at a bench trial that he illegally

reentered this country, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion 

to dismiss the indictment. Yepez-Valencia asserts that the indictment was 

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

that failed to specify the date and time for his removal hearing. He concedes 

* 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

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50474 Document: 00515293387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 19-50474

2

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 has filed a motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the 

issue is foreclosed under Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul. Alternatively, the 

Government requests an extension of time to file a brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, we concluded that the notice to appear was not 

rendered deficient because it did not specify a date or time for the removal 

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. 933 F.3d at 496-98. 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, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50474 Document: 00515293387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020