Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Federal prisoner Liduvina Zuniga-Sagrero appealed the district court’s January 22, 2026 order denying her motion for expedited removal. Her notice of appeal identified only that order.
Zuniga-Sagrero’s appellate brief, however, did not mention or challenge the expedited-removal ruling. Instead, it challenged a November 7, 2025 order denying five postconviction motions, even though she had not filed a notice of appeal from that earlier order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Zuniga-Sagrero abandoned any challenge to the January 22 order by failing to brief it. Although her pro se pleadings received liberal construction, she remained obligated to present arguments in the body of her brief to preserve them. The court therefore affirmed the January 22 order.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the November 7 order because Zuniga-Sagrero’s notice of appeal did not designate that order. It dismissed that portion of the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se appellant must brief an issue to preserve it for appellate review.
- Failing to address the order properly before the court constitutes abandonment of the appeal from that order.
- An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an earlier order that was not designated in the notice of appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores two independent appellate requirements: a notice of appeal must identify the ruling being challenged, and the appellant’s brief must actually present arguments against that ruling. Challenging a different order in the brief cannot cure a notice that omitted that order.