that Rojas was an alien who was deported or removed from the United States and was subsequently found in the United States without authorization. The indictment does not rely on a particular removal for the § 1326(a) charge, and at trial the government introduced and relied on evidence of Rojas’s 1997 removal order as well as the April 2010 removal to prove the elements of the § 1326(a) charge. Because the government relied on removals other than the April 2010 removal to support its case, we reject Rojas’s argument that the court erred in not dismissing the § 1326(a) charge in the indictment. 2 We must still consider, however, whether the district court erred in not dismissing the § 1326(b) charge in the indictment. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 504 F.3d 745, 751 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In order to subject a defendant to §
holding that an indictment could not be dismissed based on claim that testimony was hearsay and incompetent holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part