USA v. Miguel Ibarra-Ramos, No. 19-20466 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 26, 2019.
Download PDF
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 No. 19-20466 Summary Calendar FILED November 25, 2019 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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) (196588), 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
