United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 31, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-50661 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERNESTO SANCHEZ-PARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Consolidated with
No. 04-50008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAVIER ESPARZA-VELA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-1750-ALL-EP
USDC No. EP-03-CR-1058-1-PRM
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this consolidated appeal, Ernesto Sanchez-Parra and
Javier Esparza-Vela (hereinafter, “Appellants”) appeal the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-50661
c/w No. 04-50008
-2-
district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the
indictments against them which charged them with violating
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The appellants argue that their indictments
were invalid because the underlying deportation orders, which
were based on having been convicted of the felony driving while
intoxicated, are invalid under United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243
F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001).
The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment is reviewed
de novo. United States v. Wilson, 249 F.3d 366, 371 (5th Cir.
2001). To challenge the validity of an underlying deportation
order, an alien must establish that: (1) the prior deportation
hearing was fundamentally unfair; (2) the hearing effectively
eliminated the alien’s right to seek judicial review of the
removal order; and (3) the procedural deficiencies caused actual
prejudice. United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 227 F.3d 476, 483
(5th Cir. 2000); 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).
The appellants fail to show that their deportation hearings
were fundamentally unfair inasmuch as the hearings did not
violate their procedural due process rights. See United States
v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
537 U.S. 1135 (2003). The court need not reach the appellants’
remaining arguments. See Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d at 231; Lopez-
Vasquez, 227 F.3d at 485. AFFIRMED.