United States v. Jose Medina-Jimenez
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- William Q. Hayes (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — DISMISSED.
- Area
- criminal
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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50261 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00746-WQH-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE MEDINA-JIMENEZ, AKA Juan Ortiz-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Medina-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 should be dismissed based on the appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. Medina-Jimenez responds that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) by failing to inform him of, and determine he understood, the terms of the waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal, and for plain error the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record reflects that, during the plea colloquy, the court addressed Medina-Jimenez personally and confirmed that the plea agreement had been translated for him, he had discussed the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver provision, with his attorney, and he understood the rights he was waiving.
In addition, Medina-Jimenez confirmed in writing and orally that he had read the entire plea agreement, understood its terms, and discussed it with his attorney. On this record, any Rule 11 error did not affect Medina-Jimenez’s substantial rights.
See id. at 987. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See id.at 988.
DISMISSED.
2 18-50261