Opinion
No. 19-4659
04-02-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODOLFO SEGURA-VIRGEN, Defendant - Appellant.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00149-REP-1) Before KEENAN, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Segura-Virgen pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). On appeal, Segura contends that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that the underlying removal order was void or, in the alternative, subject to collateral attack under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) (2018), because he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. We have reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the district court's thorough memorandum opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Segura-Virgen, No. 3:18-cr-00149-REP-1 (E.D. Va. May 16, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED