Opinion
19-30144 19-30146
10-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL ROMERO-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding Nos. 4:15-cr-06027-EFS-1 4:18-cr-06049-EFS-1
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Daniel Romero-Romero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of his term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Romero-Romero contends that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 2012 removal order that provided the basis for his 2018 illegal reentry conviction, as well as the 2016 illegal reentry conviction that resulted in the revocation of supervised release, because the notice to appear did not specify the date and time of his removal hearing. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a defective notice to appear does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction).
Because the notice to appear conferred jurisdiction on the immigration court, we do not reach Romero-Romero's argument that the subsequent notice of hearing was insufficient to cure the alleged jurisdictional defects in the notice to appear. Moreover, any alleged defect in the notice of hearing was harmless in light of appellant's appearance at his removal hearing.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).