Court Opinion

ID: 9406996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 16:00:55.802577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.849409
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                 JUL 5 2023
                                                                            MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          No.    19-50172

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                  D.C. No.
                                                   3:18-cr-03507-LAB-1
 v.

CESAR PAZ-NEGRETE,                                 MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted June 14, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.

      Defendant-Appellant Cesar Paz-Negrete appeals his conviction, following a

jury trial, for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court

denied Paz-Negrete’s pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
his underlying deportation was invalid. See United States v. Martinez-Hernandez,

932 F.3d 1198, 1202–03 (9th Cir. 2019) (providing that a defendant charged with

illegal reentry can collaterally attack the validity of his underlying removal order).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      1. Paz-Negrete first argues that his deportation was invalid because his

Notice to Appear (NTA) lacked the time and date of his removal hearing, depriving

the immigration court of jurisdiction. This argument is foreclosed by our en banc

decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, which held that “the failure of an

NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court

of subject matter jurisdiction.” 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023).

      2. Next, Paz-Negrete asserts his deportation was invalid because he was

removed in violation of a magistrate judge’s (MJ’s) order in his separate habeas

proceedings in the Central District of California. There, the MJ entered an order

stating that “[w]here the Petitioner challenges a final order of removal, Respondent

SHALL NOT remove Petitioner prior to the resolution of this action without

providing reasonable notice to the Court.” Despite that order, the government

deported Paz-Negrete without notice shortly after this court denied Paz-Negrete’s

motion to stay removal in his immigration appeal.

                                           2
      Paz-Negrete characterizes the MJ’s order as a “stay of removal” and cites

Singh v. Waters, 87 F.3d 346 (9th Cir. 1996), and United States v. Fermin-

Rodriguez, 5 F. Supp. 2d 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), to argue that “deportation in

violation of a stay of removal renders the deportation legally invalid.” But the

defendants in those cases were deported in violation of formal stay orders issued

by an immigration court and a court of appeals. Singh, 87 F.3d at 347; Fermin-

Rodriguez, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 160. Here, by contrast, the MJ’s order did not purport

to stay Paz-Negrete’s removal but instead merely required notice. There was no

final removal order when the MJ entered the order requiring notice, and after the

final removal order was entered, notice to the MJ would not have allowed for a

different outcome because district courts lack jurisdiction to review removal

orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). We therefore conclude that, while regrettable,

the government’s decision to deport Paz-Negrete without notice did not render the

deportation invalid for purposes of § 1326.

      3. Last, Paz-Negrete argues he was improperly found removable because his

California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) conviction for assault with a deadly weapon

does not constitute an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). As

explained in the concurrently filed memorandum disposition addressing Paz-

Negrete’s immigration appeal, see Paz-Negrete v. Garland, No. 16-73889, binding

                                          3
authority establishes that a § 245(a)(1) conviction constitutes an aggravated felony

because it falls within the generic federal definition of “crime of violence.” See 8

U.S.C. §§ 16(a), 1101(a)(43)(F); United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d

1060, 1065–68 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1189–97

(9th Cir. 2009). We therefore conclude the immigration court properly found Paz-

Negrete removable based on his § 245(a)(1) conviction.1

      AFFIRMED.

      1
             Paz-Negrete suggests in the alternative that this panel certify to the
California Supreme Court the question “whether the mens rea for assault involves
an intentional use of violent force.” Certification is not necessary because there is
already binding Ninth Circuit authority holding that assault under California law
requires more than negligent or reckless conduct and that assault with a deadly
weapon “is violent in nature.” Grajeda, 581 F.3d at 1192–96; see also Safaryan v.
Barr, 975 F.3d 976, 985 (9th Cir. 2020); Velasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d at
1066–68; United States v. Jimenez-Arzate, 781 F.3d 1062, 1063–65 (9th Cir. 2015)
(per curiam).
                                          4