United States v. Miguel Ibarra-Ramos ( 2019 )

Case: 19-20466 Document: 00515212232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-20466 November 25, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MIGUEL ANGEL IBARRA-RAMOS, also known as Miguel Angel Ibarra
Ramos,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-618-1
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Miguel Angel Ibarra-Ramos appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into
the United States. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss the indictment, arguing that the indictment was invalid because the
notice to appear in his removal proceedings was defective because it failed to
specify a time and date for his removal hearing, and that the removal order
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20466 Document: 00515212232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
No. 19-20466
was thus void. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul v. Barr,
930 F.3d 684, 689-93 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, (Nov. 12, 2019) (19-
6588), and United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), but
he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an
unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is
foreclosed under Pierre-Paul and Pedroza-Rocha. Alternately, the Government
requests an extension of time to file its brief.
In Pedroza-Rocha, this court applied Pierre-Paul to conclude that the
notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date for
the hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration
court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza-Rocha could not collaterally attack his
notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933
F.3d at 496-98. Ibarra-Ramos’s arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed by
this case. See id. Because the Government’s position “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), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2