22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T485,MEMORANDUM Jorge Alberto Soto-Castelo appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with being an alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Soto-Castelo contends that his prior deportation was invalid because the immigration judge failed to advise him that he might be eligible for “fast-track” voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(l). Soto-Castelo was not prejudiced by any defect in his prior deportation proceeding. In particular, Soto-Castelo has not demonstrated a plausible ground for relief from deportation, see United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000), because he had a prior aggravated felony conviction, and was therefore barred from receiving voluntary departure, see United States v. Benitez-Perez, 367 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir.2004); see also Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 52-53 , 127 S.Ct. 625 , 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b2,

MEMORANDUM

Jorge Alberto Soto-Castelo appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with being an alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Soto-Castelo contends that his prior deportation was invalid because the immigration judge failed to advise him that he might be eligible for “fast-track” voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(l). Soto-Castelo was not prejudiced by any defect in his prior deportation proceeding. In particular, Soto-Castelo has not demonstrated a plausible ground for relief from deportation, see United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2000), because he had a prior aggravated felony conviction, and was therefore barred from receiving voluntary departure, see United States v. Benitez-Perez, 367 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir.2004); see also Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 52-53 , 127 S.Ct. 625 , 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

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