Arturo Picca, a citizen of Italy, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, where he lived without incident for 35 years. After Picca was convicted of attempted sale of a controlled substance, the Department of Homeland Security served him with a “Notice to Appear,” charging him with removability under a federal statute that renders deportable any alien convicted of a crime “relating to a controlled substance.” Federal law required that the judge 

(1) Advise Picca of his right to representation, at no expense to the government, 

(2) Advise him of the availability of free legal services provided by organizations and attorneys located in the district where the removal hearing is being held,

(3) Ascertain that he has received a list of such programs. The Notice to Appear included a list of qualified attorneys and organizations who were available to represent him at no cost. Picca appeared at several hearings, each time represented by an attorney. 

However, when Picca appeared at the fourth hearing, his counsel informed the judge that he was withdrawing from his representation of Picca. The judge then granted a continuance in order for Picca to “get another lawyer.” Picca appeared before a judge one final time. In advance of that hearing, Picca’s wife submitted a letter stating that their family did “not have the funds to keep paying the large sums of money that are needed for each hearing.” Despite the fact that Picca was not represented by an attorney, the judge proceeded with the hearing and entered an order of removal. Was Picca denied due process of law? Explain.