
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Bernal VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 27, 2011.
    Charlotte E. Kaiser, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vincent James Brunkow, Esquire, Assistant Appellate Supervisor, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Bernal Valdez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss his indictment charging him with being an alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Valdez contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the underlying removal hearing violated his due process rights. Specifically, Valdez argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) violated his rights by failing to inform him that he might be eligible for relief from removal under sections 245(a) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The district court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment because Valdez has not shown that his due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying immigration proceeding, and because there was no prejudice as a result of any alleged defects. See United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir.2004); see also United States v. Moriel-Luna, 585 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th Cir.2009) (‘We do not require IJs to speculate about the possibility of anticipated changes of circumstances and advise aliens of facts not suggested in the record.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     