Court Opinion

ID: 9383262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 00:00:33.897735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.676679
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51171         Document: 00516694132             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-51171
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                March 29, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Lazaro Hernandez-Adame,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-3548-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Lazaro Hernandez-Adame appeals his bench trial convictions for two
   counts of attempting to illegally reenter the United States following removal.
   He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
   superseding indictment, which collaterally attacked the removal orders

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51171      Document: 00516694132          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                    No. 21-51171

   underlying the charged offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). He also appeals
   the denial of his motion for appointment of an expert in immigration law.
          We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an
   indictment de novo. United States v. Parrales-Guzman, 922 F.3d 706, 707
   (5th Cir. 2019). An alien indicted for illegal reentry may collaterally attack
   the underlying removal order. § 1326(d). Pursuant to § 1326(d), there are
   “three prerequisites that defendants facing unlawful-reentry charges must
   satisfy before they can challenge their original removal orders.” United States
   v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615, 1619 (2021). Those prerequisites are
   “(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been
   available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at
   which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity
   for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”
   Id. at 1619-20 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A contention
   that the removal order was legally erroneous does not excuse compliance
   with the mandatory exhaustion and denial of judicial review requirements.
   Id. at 1622. When an alien fails to satisfy one of the requirements, the court
   need not consider the others. Parrales-Guzman, 922 F.3d at 707.
          With respect to Count 1, the district court determined that
   Hernandez-Adame’s challenge to the December 2018 removal order lacked
   merit because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; with respect
   to Count 2, the district court determined that Hernandez-Adame failed to
   establish that he had been denied the opportunity for judicial review of the
   June 2015 removal order. Hernandez-Adame fails to show that either
   determination is erroneous. See Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. at 1619-22.
          We review the district court’s denial of a motion for expert services
   for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hardin, 437 F.3d 463, 468 (5th
   Cir. 2006). “The burden is on the defendant to justify the authorization of

                                         2
Case: 21-51171     Document: 00516694132           Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                    No. 21-51171

   [expert] services under [18 U.S.C.] § 3006A(e)(1), . . . demonstrating with
   specificity the reasons why such services are required.” United States v.
   Boyd, 773 F.3d 637, 642 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, brackets,
   and citation omitted). Hernandez-Adame fails to demonstrate that the denial
   of his motion for an immigration law expert was an abuse of discretion. See
   United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 784 (5th Cir. 2019).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.                  The
   Government’s motion for us to take judicial notice of court records, which is
   unopposed, is GRANTED. See Bauer v. Texas, 341 F.3d 352, 362 n.8 (5th
   Cir. 2003). Its alternative motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

                                         3