Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10609
_ D.C. No. CR-04—00345—EHC
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. -
JUDGMENT
GREGORIO MIRANDAJMARTINEZ, _
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona .
(Phoenix). t
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly ‘
submitted. n
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 07/ 14/05 _ _- .
A more c0i==·v ‘
CATHY A. cxmeiascrsa
Clerk of Court _
Arrest .,
A Aus - s 2005. p
by: ¢I]f¤Jl.__»i_'
Case 2:04—cr—00345-EHC Document 24 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 3 _

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS L E D
FOR THE NTNTH CIRCUIT JUL 14 2gg5
UNITED STATES or AMERICA, N0. 04-10609 °”U¥% Plaintiff — Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00345-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM"
GREGORIO MIRANDA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding _
submiaea June 15, 2005**
I Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. .
. Gregorio Miranda-—Ma1·tinez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after
deportation, 8 U.S.C. § l326(a). He contends on appeal that his conviction should
` be vacated because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure ll. We reject that contention and we affirm.
" 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.
"` This panel unanimously Ends this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04—cr—00345-EHC Document 24 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 2 of 3

DISCUSSION
Miranda-Martinez relies on United States v. Vonn, 224 F.3d 1152, 1156
(9th Cir. 2000) (applying harmless error review). That decision, however, was
vacated by United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002), holding that a
defendant who seeks relief for a Rule 1 1 violation must demonstrate plain error. `
The Supreme Court later clarified "that a defendant who seeks reversal of his
conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain
error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he
would not have entered the plea." United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct.
· 2333, 2340 (2004). l
Applying that standard, we conclude that no reversible error occurred.
Miranda-Martinez does not argue he was prejudiced by the district court’s
omissions and no prejudice is apparent from the record. Rather, the record l
indicates that Miranda—Martinez substantially reduced his sentence by pleading
guilty. Moreover, the Government appeared to have a strong case on the
dismissed counts and Miranda-Martinez appeared to have no reasonable defense.
g Q at 2341. Accordingly, whatever Rule 11 violation occurred, it "made no
difference to the outcome here." Q
AFFIRl\/IED. `
2
Case 2:04—cr—00345-EHC Document 24 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00345-EHC

Document 24

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00345-EHC

Document 24

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00345-EHC

Document 24

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 3 of 3