gno.law

United States v. Raul Cortes-Rios

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50204 · 2013-10-03 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul CORTES-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Johnnie B. Rawlinson (author), Smith, Morgan Christen

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50204 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05389-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * RAUL CORTES-RIOS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Raul Cortes-Rios appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The government argues that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver.

We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009).

Cortes-Rios contends that the appeal waiver is unenforceable because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and his constitutional rights. We disagree.

The district court did not violate Rule 11 by failing to advise Cortes-Rios that he would be subject to deportation following his guilty plea. See United States v. Delgado-Ramos, 635 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). As to Cortes-Rios’s contention that the district court violated Rule 11(b)(1)(E) by failing to advise him of his right to testify at trial, Cortes-Rios did not object to this error in the district court and he has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Finally, the sentencing proceedings did not violate Cortes- Rios’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.

Because the appeal waiver applies and is enforceable, we dismiss. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

DISMISSED.

2 12-50204

Cites, in this corpus