Case ID: f-appx_531/html/0830-01.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. Guillermo JUAREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10370.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason M. Hannan, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Juarez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for illegal entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Juarez-Rodriguez contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) by failing to address him personally in a timely manner. He also contends that the district court violated Rule 11(b)(2) by failing to determine that his plea was voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises. We review for harmless error. See United States v. Aguilar-Vera, 698 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.2012). Any Rule 11 error was harmless because there is no indication in the record that Juarez-Rodriguez would have pled differently in the absence of the alleged errors. See id. at 1201-02; United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 101, 184 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012).

Juarez-Rodriguez also contends that the mass plea hearing violated his due process rights. This argument lacks merit. See Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d at 1062.

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