Court Opinion

ID: 2805133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-02 20:01:30.090856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:38.215825
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                               JUN 02 2015

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50389

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:12-cr-05183-MMA-1

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ISRAEL MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015
                              Pasadena, California

Before: LIPEZ,** WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

      Israel Martinez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for

illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
               The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, Circuit Judge for the First
Circuit, sitting by designation.
      Martinez-Gonzalez challenges the removal order underlying his conviction

on due process grounds, pursuant to § 1326(d). He contends that his 2009 removal

hearing was fundamentally unfair because the Immigration Judge failed to

adequately inform Martinez-Gonzalez of his apparent eligibility for voluntary

removal and to afford Martinez-Gonzalez an opportunity to apply for that relief.

See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 8

C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)).

      The Immigration Judge advised Martinez-Gonzalez that he may be eligible

for voluntary departure and asked Martinez-Gonzalez whether he would like to

have a hearing on voluntary departure. This colloquy was not fundamentally

unfair. Cf. United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2