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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2023 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
03White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2023** Before: CLIFTON, R.
04The 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.
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.