Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicasio ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-19
Citations: 564 F. App'x 894
Docket Number: No. 12-10421
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicasio ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 894–895

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicasio ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10421.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2014.
Filed March 19, 2014.
Nirav Kaushik Desai, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Miles Porter, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nicasio Roman appeals his conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment based on alleged due process violations in his underlying removal proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 685 (9th Cir.2012). We affirm.
An alien mounting a collateral attack on the underlying removal order "must, as a threshold matter, show that he exhausted his administrative remedies." United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 685 (9th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 559 (9th Cir.2010)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1). Here, the record reflects that Roman appealed the underlying removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but later dismissed his appeal. Thus, Roman failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.