Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20333/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javier Enrique Melendez-Wisenthal
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20333

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER ENRIQUE MELENDEZ-WISENTHAL, also known as Robert Diaz 

Isaguirre, also known as Luis A. Aguillar, also known as Marco Antonio 

Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-387-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Enrique Melendez-Wisenthal appeals his conviction for illegal 

reentry, 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. 

Melendez-Wisenthal asserts that the indictment was invalid because the 

removal order was void due to a defective notice to appear that failed to specify 

* 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 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20333 Document: 00515343741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2020
No. 19-20333

2

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 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. Pedroza-Rocha, 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: 19-20333 Document: 00515343741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2020