NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JOSE RAUL ORTIZ

- PINA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50260
D.C. No. 2:19

- cr - 00074

- JFW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 11, 2020 * * Pasadena, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and M. WATSON, ** * District Judge.
Jose Raul Ortiz

- Pina appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . The facts are

* 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 Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Oh io, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

known to the parties so we do not repeat them here.
I
Ortiz

- Pina only challenges the validity of his June 2004 removal order, but he does not challenge the subsequent July 2004 removal order. B ut only one valid prior removal order is necessary to support a conviction for illegal reentry

. 8
U.S.C. § 1326. See also United States v. Alarcon

- Tapia , 599 F. App’x 278, 279 (9th Cir. 2015) (the invalidity of one removal order does not taint a subsequent order).
II Moreover, his specific challenges to the June 2004 removal order are not persuasive. First, the record reveals that at the June 2004 removal proceeding , Ortiz

- Pina was advised of his right to appeal the removal order multiple times, but he explicitly w aived that right. And “an alien cannot collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he validly waived the right to appeal that order.”
United States v. Ramos , 623 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted). Ortiz

- Pina was not “improperly deprived of the opportunity for judicial review” and he failed to “exhaust[t] any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).
Second , the record reveals that Ortiz

- Pina was advised of his right to counsel3

multiple times and twice given a list of free or low

- cost attorneys to represent him. He was also twice granted continuances so that he could find an attorney to represent him , but h e still chose to waive his right to counsel

. Finally , the immigration judge was not required to inform Ortiz

- Pina of any
defense to removal based on “undoing” his conviction at the state court level when such a defense was not apparent from the record before the immigration judge

. United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Furthermore,

“ a conviction cannot be collaterally attacked in a deportation proceeding

. ”
Urbina

- Maurico v. I.N.S. , 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 1993).
Th us, the district court correctly denied Ortiz

- Pina’s motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry.
AFFIRMED
.