Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPARZA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 09-50213
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPARZA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 813–813

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ESPARZA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50213.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
David Daniel Leshner, Bruce R. Castet-ter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sylvia Baiz, Esquire, Law Offices of Sylvia A. Baiz, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Antonio Esparza-Perez appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Esparza-Perez contends that his prior deportation was invalid because an immigration judge failed to advise him that he might be eligible for discretionary relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The record reflects that Esparza-Perez was not prejudiced by any defect in his prior deportation proceeding. See United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir.2003). Specifically, the district court properly concluded that he failed to establish a plausible ground for relief because the evidence he submitted was outweighed by, among other factors, his prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts upon his minor stepdaughter. See id. at 1056-57.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.