Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20283/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Majano Maldonado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20283

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL MAJANO MALDONADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-590-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Majano Maldonado appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326

for illegal presence in the United States. Citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 

2105 (2018), he contends that his prior removals do not satisfy the removal 

element of § 1326 because the notice to appear in his original removal 

proceeding did not state the date, time, and place of the removal hearing. In 

United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 497-98 (5th Cir. 2019), petition 

* 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

March 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20283 Document: 00515355536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 19-20283

2

for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), we relied on Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684, 688-89 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) 

(No. 19-779), to conclude that (1) a notice to appear that lacked the date and 

time of the removal hearing was not defective, (2) in the alternative, any defect 

was cured by the subsequent mailing of a notice of hearing, and (3) the 

purported defect was not jurisdictional. Additionally, we held that the 

defendant could not collaterally attack the notice to appear without first 

exhausting administrative remedies. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 498. 

Conceding that Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul foreclose his claim, Majano 

Maldonado raises it to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, which is proper 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). Because Majano Maldonado correctly concedes that his claim

is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul and Pedroza-Rocha, 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 of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20283 Document: 00515355536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2020