Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael MORA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-28
Citations: 272 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 05-50852
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael MORA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael MORA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50852.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 28, 2008.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Debra R. Torres-Reyes, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Mora-Ortiz appeals from his conditional guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mora-Ortiz contends that the district court erred by failing to dismiss his indictment for illegal re-entry because his predicate deportation and subsequent reinstatement of deportation violated his due process rights. This contention fails because, even assuming Mora-Ortiz exhausted his administrative remedies, he did not demonstrate that he had a plausible ground for relief from deportation, and consequently cannot establish prejudice. See United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.