USA V. OMAR DOMINGUEZ-VALENCIA, No. 15-50531 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-50531 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02064-BTM v. MEMORANDUM* OMAR DOMINGUEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Omar Dominguez-Valencia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Dominguez-Valencia contends that his underlying removal order, which was based on his conviction for burglary in violation of California Penal Code § 459, is invalid in light of this court’s decision in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016). Regardless of the merits of this contention, by entering an unconditional guilty plea, Dominguez-Valencia waived his right to challenge the validity of the underlying removal order. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Dominguez-Valencia’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 15-50531

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.