United States v. Luis David Huerta-Carranza

USCA11 Case: 20-12038 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-12038 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS DAVID HUERTA-CARRANZA, a.k.a. David Huerta, a.k.a. Luis David Huerta, Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 20-12038 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 20-12038 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00597-RAL-AAS-1 ____________________ Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Luis Huerta-Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from his conviction and sentence for being found illegally in the United States after being convicted of a felony and previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the immigration judge (“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction in his original removal proceeding based on a defective notice to appear (“NTA”), under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). He also argues that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) and (3)(C) are unconstitutional and violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. However, he concedes that our precedent forecloses both of his claims, and he seeks to simply preserve them for further review. Accordingly, we affirm. I. Background Huerta-Carranza entered the United States illegally from Mexico in the 1990s. In 2001, authorities served Huerta-Carranza USCA11 Case: 20-12038 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 3 of 6 20-12038 Opinion of the Court 3 with a NTA charging him as removable for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The NTA indicated that he should appear before an IJ at a date and time to be determined. A subsequent notice provided him with the date, place, and time of his removal hearing. The IJ subsequently ordered him removed to Mexico, and he was removed in June 2001. At some point thereafter he reentered the United States illegally and was arrested several times for various offenses between 2004 and 2013. In 2013, he was charged and convicted of illegal reentry and again removed from the United States in January 2014. He reentered again and was once again charged and convicted of illegal reentry and after serving his sentence was again removed to Mexico in 2017. Later, in July 2019, he again illegally entered, his prior removal order was reinstated, and he was removed that same month. Later in 2019, he reentered again and was charged in the present case with illegal reentry after having sustained a felony conviction and being removed. Huerta-Carranza filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his original 2001 removal proceedings because his NTA was defective under Pereira, in which the Supreme Court held that a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of the initial removal proceeding does not qualify as a …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals