Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel AGUILAR-GODINEZ, aka Guillermo Govea-Pena, aka Guillermo Guvea, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 11, 2015.
    
    Filed March 13, 2015.
    Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant U.S., Matthew C. Stegman, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy Edward Warriner, Law Office of Timothy E. Warriner, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Aguilar-Godinez pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess a chemical to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(c)(2). The district court applied two sentencing enhancements that Aguilar-Godinez now challenges on appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal. As part of his plea agreement, Aguilar-Godinez waived the “right to appeal any aspect of the sentence imposed in this case.” Aguilar-Godinez entered into the plea deal knowingly and voluntarily and stated that he understood the terms. United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th Cir.2004) (“A defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if the language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and if the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made.”).

Aguilar-Godinez argues that the sentencing enhancements nevertheless must be vacated, because the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1) by failing to address the defendant personally regarding the plea terms. Applying plain-error review, we disagree. See United States v. Ma, 290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2002). The district court asked the prosecutor to summarize the terms of the plea agreement — including the waiver of appeal rights — and personally addressed Aguilar-Godinez to confirm that he understood those terms. Id.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.