N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR IO M ER C ADO-VEGA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50365

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-02974-JLS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

8, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER , R AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. M ario M e rc a do-Ve ga

a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his
m otion to dism

iss theindic tm e nt c ha

rging him with be i ng a

n a lie n who wa s re m ove d from

and subse q

ue ntly found in theUnite d State s in viola tion of 8 U.S.C
. 

# FIL ED JUL 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1326. M e rc a do ple a de d guilty a s pa rt of a c onditional a gre e m e nt tha t pre s e rve d his a bility to a p p e a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion. Hec onte nds tha t the indic tm e nt should ha

v e be e n dism isse d be c a

use the 1996 re m o va l orde r that form e d the pre dic ate for his § 1326 c onvic tion wa s inva lid. M e rc a do first a

rgue s tha t he “ doe s not re c a ll” be ing pre se nt a t the 1996 he aring a t a ll. The distric t c ourt m a de a fa c tua l finding tha

t M e rc a do wa s pre se nt, ba se d on finge rprint e vide nc e and the fa c t tha t M e rc a do wa s in c ustody at the tim e . M e rc a do c ha lle n ge s tha

t c onc lusion on the

grounds tha

t he doe s not re m e m

be r atte nding thehe aring a

nd tha t he would not ha

ve spoke n English a s we ll a s the pe rson on thea

udio re c ording. Ha

ving fa ile d to support the

latte r a sse rtion with a

n a ffidav it a

nd to e xpla in how thefinge rprint e vide n c e wa s in a ny wa y unre l ia ble , M e rc a do c annot e s ta

blish c le a r e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s finding. Se e Unite d State s v . Re y e s-Bonilla , 671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th C ir.), c e r t. de nie d, 133 S. C t. 322 (2012). M e rc a do ne xt a

rgue s tha t he ne ve r va lidly

wa ive d his right to c ounse l at tha t he aring be c a

use the im

m igration judgea dvise d him of tha t right only

while
a ddre s sing M e rc a d o an d fe llow deporte e s a s pa rt of a group. Eve n a ssum ing tha t M e rc a do’ s wa ive r wa s not va lid, howe v e r, we c o nc lude that he ha s fa ile d to show pre j udic e be c a

use he ha s ide n tifie d no “pla usible grounds” on whic h he c ould ha ve 2be e n gra

n te d re lie f from re m ova l. Id. at 1049. At the 1996 he aring, M e rc a do wa s de e m e d re m ova

ble be c a u se he c onc e de d tha

t he ha d be e n c onvic te d of a drug tra ffic king c rim e . M e rc a do now c onte nds tha t, if he ha d ha d the a ssista nc e of a n attorne y , he would not ha ve m a de the sa

m e a dm i ssion a

nd would poten tia l ly

have be e n a b le to obta in volunta

ry de pa rture . M e rc a do doe s not, howe v e r, disputetha t he wa s in fa c t c onvic t e d of a c rim e tha t qua lifie d a s a

n a ggrav ate d fe lony , whic h would ha ve re nde re d him

ine ligiblefor volunta

ry de pa rture . Se e 8 U.S.C
. §§ 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), 1229c (a )(1). He argue s only tha t the gove rnm e nt did not introduc e a

c e rtifie d c opy of his drug c onvic tion, a s he c la i m s wa s re quire d by sta tute , a nd m ight ha

ve be e n una

ble to do so if a

c om pe te nt a ttorne y ha d insiste d on it. This spe c ulat ive argum e nt fa ils to show the pla usible grounds for re lie f that M e rc a do ne e ds to de m onstra t e pre j udic e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Bustos-Oc h oa , 704 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ), ame nde d, 714 F.3d 1133 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D.

3