United States of America v. J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
J. JESUS VEGA-ARROYO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50395
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02798-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50395 2
we affirm.
Vega-Arroyo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to
dismiss the indictment. He asserts that his underlying removal order is defective
because his waiver of his right to counsel in the removal proceedings was
ineffective. We review this claim de novo. See United States v. Reyes-Bonilla,
671 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 322 (2012).
Vega-Arroyo was required to prove actual prejudice in relation to his claim
of ineffective waiver of his right to counsel, because he had a prior aggravated
felony conviction at the time of the removal proceedings. See id. at 1049. Because
Vega-Arroyo made no attempt to prove actual prejudice, the district court properly
denied his motion to dismiss the indictment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --