FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9393610
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Martin Ramos-Urias

No. 9393610 · Decided April 24, 2023
No. 9393610 · Ninth Circuit · 2023 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 24, 2023
Citation
No. 9393610
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10138 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00076-JSW-1 v. MARTIN RAMOS-URIAS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2023** Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. The government appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the indictment against Martin Ramos-Urias for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and its order denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand. * 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). The district court granted Ramos-Urias’s motion to dismiss the indictment after concluding that deficiencies in the notice to appear deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, rendering his 2006 removal order fundamentally unfair and relieving Ramos-Urias of the obligation to meet the other requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615, 1622 (2021), that “each of the statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory.” In addition, we decided in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023), that defects in a notice to appear do not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction. In light of these decisions, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings. Ramos-Urias’s motion to file a supplemental brief is denied. The Clerk will strike the supplemental brief at Docket Entry No. 57. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 19-10138
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Martin Ramos-Urias in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 24, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9393610 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →