
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015.
    Filed June 2, 2015.
    Melissa Anne Meister, Arent Fox LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew Sutton, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Chloe S. Dillon, Trial, Amy Frances Kimpel, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LIPEZ, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Israel Martinez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Martinez-Gonzalez challenges the removal order underlying his conviction on due process grounds, pursuant to § 1326(d). He contends that his 2009 removal hearing was fundamentally unfair because the Immigration Judge failed to adequately inform Martinez-Gonzalez of his apparent eligibility for voluntary removal and to afford Martinez-Gonzalez an opportunity to apply for that relief. See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 913-14 (9th Cir.2015) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)).

The Immigration Judge advised Martinez-Gonzalez that he may be eligible for voluntary departure and asked Martinez-Gonzalez whether he would like to have a hearing on voluntary departure. This colloquy was not fundamentally unfair. Cf. United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2012).

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