United States v. Amalia Mondragon-Carrillo

MEMORANDUM

Amalia Mondragon-Carrillo appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss her indictment for illegal reentry, and her sentence for that crime. We affirm.

(1) Mondragon first argues that her expedited removal on February 2, 2002, was fundamentally unfair due to procedural error, which denied her due process and prejudiced her. See United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1087-91 (9th Cir.2011); see also United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 683 (9th Cir.2010). Thus, she argues, that removal could not serve as the predicate for the charged reentry offense. See United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (9th Cir.2004). We disagree. Mondragon asserts that the immigration officer failed to interview her in the Spanish language and complete the necessary form, as he was required to do. See 8 C.F.R. § 1235.3 (b)(2)(i). However, the record is silent on those subjects. She did not carry her burden of persuasion in those respects and has not shown prejudice. See United States v. Bustos-Ochoa, 704 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2012); Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d at 1088 n. 12. Mondragon also asserts that the immigration officer did not advise her…