N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOEL M AR TINEZ-PERE Z, a .k.a . Joe l M artine z Pe re z ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10438

D.C . Nos. 4:13-c r-00882-C KJ 4:15-cr-00176-C KJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 16, 2016 ** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Joe l M artine z -Pe re za

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry of a re m ove d a lie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326, a

nd the re voc ation of his term of supe rvise d re le a se . W e have



# FIL ED AUG 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , M artine z Pe re z ’ s re que st for ora l a

rgum e nt is de nie d.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . M artine z -Pe re z ’ s m otion to e xpa nd his notic e of a

ppe a l is gra

nte d. M artine z -Pe re z ’ s pro se notic e of a ppe a l ide ntifie d both judgme nts from whic h he wa s a ppe a ling. Although he

indic ate d tha

t he wa s a p pe a ling only

his se nte nc e s, we c onside r his c ha lle nge s to his c onvic tion a n d re voc at ion be c a

use the gove rnm e nt ha s fully brie fe d thoseissue s. Se e Unite d State s v . Little fie l d , 105 F.3d 527, 528 (9th C ir. 1997). M artine z -Pe re z c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d by

de ny ing his c ounse l’ s pre -ple a

m otion to withdra

w. He wa ive d

his right to a

ppe a l this issue

in his ille ga l re e ntry

c a se whe n h e e nte re d his unc onditional guilty ple a . 1 S e e Unite d State s v . Fore man , 329 F.3d 1037, 1038-39 (9th C ir. 2003), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Unite d State

s v . J ac obo C astillo , 496 F.3d 947, 949 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). M artine z -Pe re z argue s tha t we m ay c onside r this issue in his supervise d re le a se c a se be c a

use his a dm i ssion wa s not knowing a nd volunta

ry . He a sse rts tha

t he c o uld not c o m

m unic ate with his c ounse l a nd tha t the m a g istra

te judge viola

te d Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32.1 by fa i ling to a dvise him of the rights he

1 In light of this c onc l usion, wedo not re a c h the gove rnm e nt’ s a lte rnate argum e nt tha

t M artine z -Pe re z wa ive d his right to a p pe a l the c ourt’ s de nia l of the m otion to withdra

w in his ille ga l re e ntry

c a se pursua

nt to thea p pe a l wa ive r in the pa rtie s ’ ple a a gre e m e nt. 1 5 - 1 0 4 3 8 2wa s wa iving a nd the pe na ltie s he c ould fa c e by his a dm ission. The re c ord re fle c ts, howe v e r, tha

t M artine z -Pe re z knowingly and volunta

rily ple d guilty

to be ing in the Unite d State s ille ga lly

on De c e m

be r 29, 2014. He wa s inform e d of the rights he wa s wa iving by

ple a ding guilty , tha

t he c ould re c e i ve a

se nte n c e up to 78 months, and tha t he c ould re c e ive a

c o nc urre nt or c onse c utive se nte nc e for his viola tion of supe rvise d re le a se . On this re c ord, we c a nnot c o nc lude tha

t M artine z -Pe re z ’ s a dm ission to viola

ting supervise d re le a se wa s not knowing a nd volunta

ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 1 0 4 3 8 3