Opinion
No. 19-4256
02-11-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE ORANGEL SARAVIA-CHAVEZ, a/k/a David Torres, a/k/a Jose Orangel Sarabia, Defendant - Appellant.
Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Erin M. Trodden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Laura Day Rottenborn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00016-NKM-JCH-1) Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Erin M. Trodden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Laura Day Rottenborn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jose Orangel Saravia-Chavez appeals his conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). Saravia-Chavez argues that the removal order pursuant to which he was previously deported was invalid because the charging notice to appear did not indicate the time and date for his hearing. Saravia-Chavez thus posits that, because the immigration court was without the authority to remove him, his 2011 removal cannot serve as the basis for the underlying prosecution. As Saravia-Chavez concedes, though, this argument is foreclosed by our contrary ruling in United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED