gno.law

United States v. Israel Martinez-Gonzalez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50389 · 2015-06-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Lipez (author), Kim M. Wardlaw, Mary H. Murguia

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

Cites, in this corpus