USA V. REFUGIO AGUSTIN-PINEDA, No. 19-30108 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-30108 D.C. No. 2:18-CR-00174-TOR-1 MEMORANDUM* REFUGIO AGUSTIN-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Refugio Agustin-Pineda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Agustin-Pineda contends that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue the removal order underlying his conviction, and therefore that the district court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based on alleged due process defects in the underlying deportation proceeding. See United States v. UbaldoFigueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). As Agustin-Pineda concedes, his argument that the lack of a time and date on his Notice to Appear divested the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his underlying removal proceedings is foreclosed by our opinion in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Karingithi v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1106 (2020). Notwithstanding Agustin-Pineda’s assertion that Karingithi was wrongly decided, it controls our decision here. See United States v. Boitano, 796 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]s a three-judge panel we are bound by prior panel opinions and can only reexamine them when the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment. AFFIRMED. 2 19-30108
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.
