United States v. Jose Valdez , 440 F. App'x 559 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 27 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-50346
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03180-DMS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOSE BERNAL VALDEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 15, 2011 **
    Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Bernal Valdez appeals from the district court’s order denying his
    motion to dismiss his indictment charging him with being an alien found in the
    United States after deportation, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    . We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Valdez contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss
    the indictment because the underlying removal hearing violated his due process
    rights. Specifically, Valdez argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) violated his
    rights by failing to inform him that he might be eligible for relief from removal
    under sections 245(a) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    The district court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment
    because Valdez has not shown that his due process rights were violated by defects
    in the underlying immigration proceeding, and because there was no prejudice as a
    result of any alleged defects. See United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 
    364 F.3d 1042
    , 1048 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Moriel-Luna, 
    585 F.3d 1191
    ,
    1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We do not require IJs to speculate about the possibility of
    anticipated changes of circumstances and advise aliens of facts not suggested in the
    record.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     10-50346
    3   10-50346
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-50346

Citation Numbers: 440 F. App'x 559

Judges: Canby, Fisher, O'Scannlain

Filed Date: 6/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023