NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

v. ELIZARDO LUNA-MAGDALENO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50430 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03086-MMA-1 AMENDED MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 9, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Elizardo Luna-Magdaleno appeals fro m his conviction and sentence for attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

# FILED
OCT 08 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.1. Luna-Magdaleno first contends that th e district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he challenged the validity of all three removal orders on which the government re lied. Only one valid removal order is necessary to sustain the conviction, and we conclude that the 2005 removal order is valid. Luna-Magdaleno does not contest that he was properly deemed removable in 2005 because he had made a false cl aim of United States citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). He argues only that the removal order was fundamentally unfair because the immigrati on judge failed to advise him of various forms of relief from removal. However, he concedes that, of the four forms of relief he initially identified, he was not actually eligible for voluntary departure or cancellation of removal for certain nonperm anent residents. Luna-Magdaleno was also ineligible for cancellation of removal nunc pro tuncbecause, under thenexisting law, his 1998 and 2000 burglary convi ctions were aggravated felonies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); United States v. Velasco-Medina , 305 F.3d 839, 852–53 (9th Cir. 2002). Finally, even assuming that the immigration judge should have informed him that he could ask to withdraw his application for admission, no prejudice resulted because it is implausible that he would have been granted this relief in light of his fraudulent attempt to gain entry. See United States v. Barajas2Alvarado , 655 F.3d 1077, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1983 (2012). 2. Luna-Magdaleno next contends that the district court erred by increasing his offense level because the court inco rrectly determined that he had been previously removed after a conviction for an aggravated felony. Luna-Magdaleno was convicted in 2002 of petty theft witha prior conviction under California Penal Code sections 484 and 666. Following the modified categorical analysis we applied in United States v. Rivera , 658 F.3d 1073, 1077–78 (9th Cir. 2011), LunaMagdaleno’s offense falls within the defin ition of the generic theft offense because the conviction documents reflect that he pleaded guilty only to the “steal, take, [and] carry . . . away” prong of the statute. Cal. Penal Code § 484(a). The outcome in Rivera is unaffected by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), because § 484(a) is divisible. Luna-Magdaleno, like the defendant in Rivera , pleaded guilty only to the larceny provision of § 484(a); thus there is no doubt that the state crime matched the elements of the federal generic crime. 3. Finally, Luna-Magdaleno argues that the district court erred in applying 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) to impose a sentence that exceeds the two-year maximum provided for in § 1326(a). He acknowledge s that § 1326(b) has been construed as 3a penalty provision, rather than a separate crime, and that the district court was therefore authorized to apply the prior-conviction enhancement under existing precedent. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998). We have already considered and rejected Luna-Magdaleno’s argument that subsequent cases have overruled Almendarez-Torres
. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio , 657 F.3d 907, 920–21 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1614 (2012); United States v. Valdovinos-Mendez , 641 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED.

4