Court Opinion

ID: 9389086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 17:00:57.110393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.090637
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-10138

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00076-JSW-1

 v.

MARTIN RAMOS-URIAS,                             MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      The government appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the

indictment against Martin Ramos-Urias for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326, and its order denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      The district court granted Ramos-Urias’s motion to dismiss the indictment

after concluding that deficiencies in the notice to appear deprived the immigration

court of jurisdiction, rendering his 2006 removal order fundamentally unfair and

relieving Ramos-Urias of the obligation to meet the other requirements of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(d). During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in United

States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615, 1622 (2021), that “each of the

statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory.” In addition, we decided in

United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023), that defects in a notice to appear do not deprive the

immigration court of jurisdiction. In light of these decisions, we vacate the district

court’s order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings.

      Ramos-Urias’s motion to file a supplemental brief is denied. The Clerk will

strike the supplemental brief at Docket Entry No. 57.

      VACATED and REMANDED.

                                          2                                    19-10138