United States v. Omar Dominguez-Valencia

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50531

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02064-BTM

v. MEMORANDUM* OMAR DOMINGUEZ-VALENCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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, 137 S. Ct. 31 (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 (1973).

Dominguez-Valencia’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50531