United States v. Jaime Beltran-Jimenez

538 F. App'x 789
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 2013
Docket12-10205
StatusUnpublished

This text of 538 F. App'x 789 (United States v. Jaime Beltran-Jimenez) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Jaime Beltran-Jimenez, 538 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Beltran-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his bench-trial conviction and 35-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beltran-Jimenez contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss a section 1326 indictment. See United States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.2001).

Beltran-Jimenez argues that his state court conviction cannot support the deportation order underlying his current conviction because his counsel provided ineffective assistance in the state proceeding. Because Beltran-Jimenez had counsel in the state proceeding, he may not now collaterally attack his state court conviction. See United States v. Gutierrez-Cervantez, 132 F.3d 460, 462 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is not retroactive. See Chaidez v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1113, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 2010)
United States v. Juan Manuel Muro-Inclan
249 F.3d 1180 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Chaidez v. United States
133 S. Ct. 1103 (Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
538 F. App'x 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jaime-beltran-jimenez-ca9-2013.