Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Jesus VEGA-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 490 F. App'x 62
Docket Number: No. 10-50395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Jesus VEGA-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Jesus VEGA-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn Howard Ball, Law Office of Lynn H. Ball, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vega-Arroyo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. He asserts that his underlying removal order is defective because his waiver of his right to counsel in the removal proceedings was ineffective. We review this claim de novo. See United, States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 322, 184 L.Ed.2d 190 (2012).
Vega-Arroyo was required to prove actual prejudice in relation to his claim of ineffective waiver of his right to counsel, because he had a prior aggravated felony conviction at the time of the removal proceedings. See id. at 1049. Because Vega-Arroyo made no attempt to prove actual prejudice, the district court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.