Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20394/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Antonio Vargas Castro
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20394

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-570-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Antonio Vargas Castro appeals his conviction for illegally 

reentering the United States after being removed. He challenges the district 

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues that the 

indictment was invalid because the prior removal order was void due to a 

defective notice to appear that failed to specify a time and date for his removal 

hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 

* 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 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20394 Document: 00515292655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2020
No. 19-20394

2

F.3d 684, 689-93 (5th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 

490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), 

but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is 

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

Government requests an extension of time to file a brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, this court applied Pierre-Paul to conclude that the 

notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date for 

the hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration 

court of jurisdiction, and that the defendant could not collaterally attack his 

notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies.

Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98. Vargas Castro’s arguments are, as he 

concedes, 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 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: 19-20394 Document: 00515292655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2020