United States v. Candelario Cano-Gomez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10506
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00052-MHP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CANDELARIO CANO-GOMEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 11, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Candelario Cano-Gomez appeals the district court’s denial without first
holding an evidentiary hearing of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal
reentry following his 2004 deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Cano-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gomez failed to “allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to
enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist[ed].” United
States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Zone,
403 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss
indictment without evidentiary hearing because defendant “ha[d] not presented any
evidence [to support his allegation] of undue coercion” by federal authorities).
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an
evidentiary hearing before dismissing Cano-Gomez’s motion to dismiss. See
United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of evidentiary
hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED