MEMORANDUM ***

Carlos Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by summarily denying his pro se motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the motion was not submitted by his appointed counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Gonzalez’s pro se motion. See United States v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. - (U.S. Mar. 4, 2016) (No. 15-8501); United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987).

Gonzalez next contends that his conviction should be reversed because his due process rights were violated in the course of his original deportation proceedings in 1997. By entering , an unconditional guilty plea, Gonzalez waived his right to challenge the validity of the underlying deportation order. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).

Finally, Gonzalez contends that his plea was unknowing and involuntary as a result of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance. We decline to address Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.