USA V. CARLOS GONZALEZ, No. 14-10188 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 01 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 14-10188 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-01718-SRB v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jack Zouhary, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 26, 2016*** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Carlos Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by summarily denying his pro se motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the motion was not submitted by his appointed counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Gonzalez’s pro se motion. See United States v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 4, 2016) (No. 15-8501); United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987). Gonzalez next contends that his conviction should be reversed because his due process rights were violated in the course of his original deportation proceedings in 1997. By entering an unconditional guilty plea, Gonzalez waived his right to challenge the validity of the underlying deportation order. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Finally, Gonzalez contends that his plea was unknowing and involuntary as a result of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance. We decline to address Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10188
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
