United States v. Dominguez-Valencia
This text of 697 F. App'x 925 (United States v. Dominguez-Valencia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Omar Dominguez-Valencia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We haveju-risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dominguez-Valencia contends that his underlying removal order, which was based on his conviction for burglary in violation of California Penal Code § 459, is invalid in light of this court’s decision in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016). Regardless of the merits of this contention, by entering an unconditional guilty plea, Dominguez-Valencia waived his right to challenge the validity of the underlying removal order. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).
Dominguez-Valencia’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED,
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
697 F. App'x 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dominguez-valencia-ca9-2017.