# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50287 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Alfredo Arroyo**

**- Hernandez,**  also known as **Alfredo Hernandez** 

**- Arroyo,**  also known as **Arroyo Hernandez,** also known as **Alfredo Arroyo Hernandez,** also known as **Alfredo Hernandez,**  also known as **Alfredo Arroyo,** also known as **Alfredo Hernandez Arroyo,** Defendant

— Appellant **,**

**consolidated with**

**_____________** No. 20

- 50288

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Alfredo Arroyo**

**- Hernandez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50287 Document: 00515569404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2020No. 20

- 50287 c/w No. 20

- 50288

2 Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 574

- 1 USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 94

- 3

Before **Haynes, Willett,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Alfredo Arroyo

- Hernandez appeals his guilty plea conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. He also appeals a separate revocation judgment but raises no challenge to the revocation of his supervised release. He contends, c iting Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), that his prior removal does not satisfy the removal element of § 1326 because the notice to appear did not provide the date or time of the removal hearing. In United States v. Pedroza

Rocha , 933 F.3d 490, 497

- 98 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 206 L. Ed. 2d 940 (2020), we relied on Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684, 688

- 89 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 206 L. Ed. 2d 854 (2020), to conclude that (1) a notice to appear that lacked the date and time of the removal hearing was not defective, (2)

a ny defect was cured by the subsequent service 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, Arroyo

Hernandez 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

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. Case: 20-50287 Document: 00515569404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2020No. 20

- 50287 c/w No. 20

- 50288

3 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 Arroyo

- Hernandez corre ctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by Pierre

- Paul and Pedroza

- Rocha , the motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** as moot

**.** T he judgment s of the district cou rt are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-50287 Document: 00515569404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2020