United States of America v. FILIBERTO ZAVALA-CRUZ, AKA Jose Luis Navarro-Camacho, AKA Filiberto Zavala, AKA…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FILIBERTO ZAVALA-CRUZ, AKA Jose
Luis Navarro-Camacho, AKA Filiberto
Zavala, AKA Julio Zavala Cruz, AKA Julio
Zavala-Cruz, AKA Filiberto Zavala-Medina,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10079
D.C. Nos.
3:19-cr-00701-WHO-1
3:19-cr-00701-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2023
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Filiberto Zavala-Cruz (“Zavala”) appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Zavala’s motions to dismiss the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUL 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
indictment. First, Zavala argues that the removal order upon which his conviction
was predicated was fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3) because of
ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural errors. This argument is unavailing
because Zavala failed to establish prejudice from any defect in the immigration
court proceedings. See United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 804 F.3d 920, 927–29
(9th Cir. 2015). Zavala did not make “a plausible showing that an [immigration
judge] presented with all of the facts would exercise discretion” to grant him
voluntary departure. Id. at 927 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because we
affirm the district court’s decision with respect to prejudice, we need not address
Zavala’s arguments as to the other elements of a collateral attack under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(d).
Second, as Zavala concedes, any omissions in the notice to appear did not
deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Bastide-
Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --