
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10188
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 01, 2016
    Maria Rodriguez Gutierrez, USYU-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michele R. Moretti, Esquire, Law Office of Michele R. Moretti, Lake Butler, FL, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. § 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, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (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. 
      
       ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     