Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario CANO-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-01
Citations: 460 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 10-10506
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario CANO-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario CANO-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10506.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 11, 2011.
Filed Dec. 1, 2011.
Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Susan B. Gray, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Candelario Cano-Gomez appeals the district court's denial without first holding an evidentiary hearing of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry following his 2004 deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Cano-Gomez failed to "allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist[ed]." United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Zone, 403 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2005) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss indictment without evidentiary hearing because defendant "ha[d] not presented any evidence [to support his allegation] of undue coercion" by federal authorities). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing Cano-Gomez's motion to dismiss. See United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir.2010) (denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.