Opinion
20-30057 20-30058
02-22-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE JESUS MIRANDA-REYES, AKA Antolin Chavez Sandobal, AKA Jose Miranda, AKA Jose Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted February 14, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington D.C. Nos. 1:19-cr-02033-SMJ-1, 1:16-cr-02005-SMJ-1 Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
In these consolidated appeals, Jose Jesus Miranda-Reyes appeals 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 supervised release predicated in part on that conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Miranda-Reyes argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment and petition to revoke supervised release because deficiencies in the notices to appear in his removal proceedings deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction to order his removal. During the pendency of this appeal, we decided United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, which forecloses Miranda-Reyes's claim. See 39 F.4th 1187, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that defects in a notice to appear do not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction), cert. denied, No. 22-6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2023).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).