NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50040

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00725-ODW-1 v.

JUAN L. CALDERON NONBERA, AKA MEMORANDUM*

Juan Calderon, AKA Juan Louis Calderon,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 6, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Following a conditional guilty plea, Juan Calderon Nonbera was convicted

of reentering the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He was sentenced to 60 days of imprisonment, to be followed by three

* 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). years of supervised release. As permitted by his plea, Calderon appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Calderon is a native and citizen of Mexico who came to the United States

when he was eight years old. In 2002, he was ordered removed by an immigration

judge. During his hearing before the immigration judge, Calderon stated that he

wanted to waive his right to appeal. Since then, Calderon has repeatedly reentered

the country and has been removed on at least six occasions. Shortly after his most

recent removal in August 2019, Calderon was found in the United States again

without inspection or permission, and a grand jury returned an indictment charging

him with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Calderon moved to dismiss the

indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), and the district court denied his motion. We

review de novo the district court’s decision whether to dismiss an indictment under

section 1326(d). United States v. Valdivias-Soto, 112 F.4th 713, 721 (9th Cir.

2024). A defendant charged with illegal reentry may not collaterally attack the

validity of his removal order unless he demonstrates that (1) he exhausted any

available administrative remedies; (2) he was improperly deprived of the

opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the underlying removal order

was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); see United States v. Palomar-

Santiago, 593 U.S. 321, 329 (2021).

2 Calderon did not exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by

section 1326(d)(1), because he did not appeal his removal order. He argues that he

has not failed to exhaust available administrative remedies because his appellate

waiver was invalid and therefore no administrative remedies were available to him.

See United States v. De La Mora-Cobian, 18 F.4th 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 2021)

(“[A]n alien who did not validly waive his right to appeal is exempted from the

exhaustion requirement.”).

We recently held, however, that an invalid waiver of appeal ordinarily does

not render administrative remedies unavailable for purposes of section 1326(d)(1).

United States v. Nunez, 140 F.4th 1157, 1162–65 (9th Cir. 2025). Calderon

concedes that Nunez forecloses his argument that he satisfies the first component

of section 1326(d). Because he cannot show that he exhausted administrative

remedies, Calderon is barred under section 1326(d) from challenging his

indictment by collaterally attacking his 2002 removal order.

The government’s motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 45) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

3