FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50414
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00675-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CONRADO HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Conrado Hernandez-Lopez appeals from his conviction following a jury trial
for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hernandez-Lopez contends that the district court erred in denying his motion
to dismiss the indictment, where the prior removal alleged in the indictment
resulted from a fundamentally unfair deportation proceeding. Specifically, he
argues that the immigration judge failed to advise him individually during his
removal proceeding that he was eligible for voluntary departure.
The district court did not clearly err by finding that Hernandez-Lopez failed
to establish that the underlying removal order was unfair. See United States v.
Hinojosa-Perez, 206 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 2000). Hernandez-Lopez has not
shown that there was a plausible ground for relief from deportation. See United
States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A finding of
plausibility [in this case] would require a finding of plausibility, and therefore
prejudice, in almost every case.”) Accordingly, any due process violation did not
prejudice him. Since we agree with the district court’s determination on the issue
of prejudice, “we need not remand to the district court for further consideration.”
United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50414