
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar DOMINGUEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50531
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed September 29, 2017
    Benjamin Joseph Katz, Special Assistant U.S., Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S., Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H, Bu-cur Attorney at Law,'Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).'
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 haveju-risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

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, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (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, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).

Dominguez-Valencia’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED, 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     