From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Herrera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 16, 2005
134 F. App'x 193 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted: June 14, 2005.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Donald E. Kresse, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

K. Elizabeth Dahlstrom, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-06051-RHW.

Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Defendant Gaspar Arredondo Herrera challenges his conviction by guilty plea for being an alien illegally in the United States following an order of removal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326. Defendant contends that the district court's violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 require us to vacate his guilty plea and conviction. We disagree.

1. Our decision in United States v. Van Doren, 182 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.1999), forecloses Defendant's argument that the district court committed plain error in failing to ask if anyone had forced Defendant to plead guilty.

2. Because Defendant was not placed under oath during the plea hearing, the district court was not required to inform Defendant that the government could use against him any statement that he gives under oath. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(A). Moreover, Defendant is unable to demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea," because he made no statement to which the warning in Rule 11(b)(1)(A) would apply. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2336, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).

3. The sentence is remanded for processing in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Conviction AFFIRMED; sentence REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Herrera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 16, 2005
134 F. App'x 193 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

United States v. Herrera

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Gaspar Arredondo…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 16, 2005

Citations

134 F. App'x 193 (9th Cir. 2005)