USA v. Ameth Gutierrez-Rodriguez, No. 19-20361 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-20361 Document: 00515390787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-20361 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMETH GUTIERREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-596-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ameth Gutierrez-Rodriguez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment; he reserved the right to appeal this ruling in his conditional guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(a)(2). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Gutierrez-Rodriguez argues that his prior removal order was invalid because the notice to appear 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-20361 Document: 00515390787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 No. 19-20361 was defective for failing to include the date and time of his removal hearing. Gutierrez-Rodriguez therefore asserts that his prior removal could not support a conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326. He concedes that this challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19779), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed by Pedroza-Rocha and Pierre-Paul. In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties 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 parties are correct that Gutierrez-Rodriguez’s arguments are foreclosed. See Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 492-98. Accordingly, 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.
