Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50497/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Alberto Esparza-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50497

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO ESPARZA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jose Esparza, also 

known as Jose Rodriguez, also known as Jose Rodriguez-Esparza, also known 

as Jose Esparzarodriguez, also known as Jose Esparza-Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-846-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) for illegally 

reentering the United States following removal, Joes Alberto EsparzaRodriguez challenges the district court’s order declining to dismiss his 

indictment. He contends that the notice to appear for his original removal 

proceeding was defective, his prior removals were thus invalid, and they could 

* 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 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50497 Document: 00515314761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2020
No. 19-50497

2

not be used to support his illegal reentry conviction. Additionally, EsparzaRodriguez contends that he satisfied or is excused from satisfying the § 1326(d) 

requirements for collaterally attacking his removal order, such as the 

requirement that he show exhaustion of any administrative remedies. As

Esparza-Rodriguez concedes, 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 Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), 

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779).

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98, we held that the notice to appear 

was not deficient merely because it did not specify a date for the hearing, any 

such purported deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of 

jurisdiction, and the appellant could not collaterally attack his notice to appear 

without first exhausting his administrative remedies. Esparza-Rodriguez’s 

arguments are, thus, foreclosed. See id.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969), and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED as moot.

Case: 19-50497 Document: 00515314761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2020