Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50653/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50653-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Leija-Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50653

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO LEIJA-MENDOZA, also known as Sergio Leija Mendoza, also known 

as Sergio Leija, also known as Sergio Mendoza-Leija, also known as Sergio 

Mendoza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-823-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Leija-Mendoza 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 36 months of imprisonment and three years 

of supervised release. Although Leija-Mendoza was recently released from 

* 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 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50653 Document: 00515300647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 19-50653

2

prison, his appeal of his conviction is not moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 

1, 7-10 (1998); United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006).

Leija-Mendoza 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). Leija-Mendoza’s arguments are indeed foreclosed. See

Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98; see also Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 

688-90 (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: 19-50653 Document: 00515300647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020