Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis REQUENA VASQUEZ, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena-Vasquez, Also Known as Jose L. Requena, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 458 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 11-20136
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis REQUENA VASQUEZ, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena-Vasquez, Also Known as Jose L. Requena, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 458
Pages: 346–346

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis REQUENA VASQUEZ, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena, Also Known as Jose Luis Requena-Vasquez, Also Known as Jose L. Requena, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-20136
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 10, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth W. McGuire, Esq., McGuire Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Requena Vasquez appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry following removal, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He asserts that the underlying removal order was defective because his waiver of counsel during the removal proceeding was unknowing and involuntary, he was denied the right to appointed counsel, his waiver of appeal was unknowing and involuntary, and the immigration judge failed to rule on his request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure.
Requena Vasquez fails to show a reasonable likelihood that, but for the alleged defects in the removal proceeding, he would not have been removed. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844, 852 (5th Cir.2011) (stating that speculation that an alien would not have been removed is not sufficient). Because he does not establish the required element of prejudice, Reque-na Vasquez's challenge to the indictment fails. See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 229 (5th Cir.2002); § 1326(d).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.