United States of America v. Jaime Beltran-Jimenez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JAIME BELTRAN-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10205
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00948-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10205 2
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 (2010), is not retroactive. See
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Accordingly, the district
court properly denied the motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --