United States of America v. Victor Manuel Canedo-Reyna

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL CANEDO-REYNA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10196
D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00040-FRZ-
CRP-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Victor Canedo-Reyna appeals his conviction for illegal reentry in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Proa-Tovar, 975 F.2d 592, 594 (9th
Cir. 1992) (en banc), we hold that the district court properly denied Defendant’s
collateral attack on the 1985 deportation order. The court correctly held that
FILED
MAR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Defendant had not exhausted his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies). As the
government concedes, Defendant could still file a motion to reopen, but he has not
done so.
2. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Mosley, 465 F.3d 412, 414-15 (9th
Cir. 2006), we hold that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. A
reasonable juror could have concluded that Defendant was free from official
restraint in the five-day period between his entry into the country and his
interview, many miles from the border, with the testifying government agent. See
United States v. Bello-Bahena, 411 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2005) (reaching the
same conclusion on similar facts).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --