USA v. Victor Mora-Galindo, No. 19-50527 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-50517 Document: 00515168310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-50517 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. VICTOR MANUEL MORA-GALINDO, also known as Andres HernandezMiguel, Defendant-Appellant Cons. w/ No. 19-50527 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. VICTOR MANUEL MORA-GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-826-1 USDC No. 4:18-CR-217-1 Case: 19-50517 Document: 00515168310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2019 No. 19-50517 c/w No. 19-50527 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Victor Manuel Mora-Galindo 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 it was invalid because the notice to appear in his removal proceedings was defective because it did not specify a time and date for his removal hearing and that the removal order was thus void. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by United States v. PedrozaRocha, 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 Pedroza-Rocha. Alternatively, the Government requests an extension of time to file its 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). Pedroza-Rocha concluded 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 49698. Mora-Galindo’s arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed by this case. See id. 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. 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. * 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.
