United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50196

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Manuel Antonio Guaman, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 20-50202

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Manuel Antonio Guaman-Lema, also known as Efrain J. 

Oliveras-Burgos, also known as Efrain Oliveras-Burgos, also 

known as Efrain Oliveras, also known as Manuel Guaman, also 

known as Manuel Antonio Guaman, also known as Efrain 

Olivera-Burgos, also known as Manuel Antonio LemaGuaman, 

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50196 Document: 00515588092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
No. 20-50196

c/w No. 20-50202

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-60-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-517-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Manuel Antonio Guaman appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal 

reentry into the United States after a previous deportation, a violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He also appeals a separate revocation judgment 

but raises no challenge to the revocation of his supervised release. Guaman 

contends, citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2114 (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, 2020 WL 2515686 (U.S. May 18, 2020) (No. 19-6588), we 

relied on Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. 

denied, 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (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) any 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. PedrozaRocha, 933 F.3d at 498. Conceding that Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul

foreclose his claim, Guaman raises it to preserve it for further review.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-50196 Document: 00515588092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
No. 20-50196

c/w No. 20-50202

3

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 Guaman correctly 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. The judgments of 

the district court are AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50196 Document: 00515588092 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/02/2020