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 ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HER M INIO SILVA, aka

Aguila r, aka Gavila n, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30169

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00047-M JP-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c h m an, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 27, 2014 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : NOONAN, GR

A B ER , a nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt He rm inio Silva

ple a d e d guilty

to one c ount e a c h of c o nspira c y to distributec ontrolle d

substa nc e s, in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841 a nd 846; a nd distribution of c oc a ine , distribution of he roin, a nd posse ssion of m e t

ham phe tam ine 

# FIL E D SEP 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).with inte nt to distribute , e a c h in viola tion of § 841. De fe n da

nt tim e ly a ppe a ls, arguing tha

t the distric t

c ourt im prope rly pa rtic i pate d in ple a

ne gotia tions, in viola tion of Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11(c )(1), an d tha t , in the a lte rnative , the distric t c ourt’ s c om m e nts re nde re d his ple a

involunta

ry . R e vie wing de novo whe the r the distric t c ourt im prope rly pa rtic ipate d in ple a ne gotia tions, Unite d State s v. B ruc e , 976 F.2d 552, 555 (9th C ir. 1992), a nd whe the r a

guilty ple a wa s volunta

ry , Unite d State s v. Forre ste r, 616 F.3d 929, 934 (9th C i r. 2010), we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not viola te R ule 11(c )(1) be c a

use it did not ta

ke pa rt in " any disc ussion or c om m unic a tion re ga

rding the se nte nc e to be im pose d prior to the e ntry of a

ple a ." B ruc e , 976 F.2d a t 556 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). In re sponse to c om

m e nts from

De fe nda nt a nd his la wy e r that De fe nda nt wa nte d to a c c e pt re s ponsibility , the distric t c ourt sa id tha t " it’ s a lwa

y s [De fe nda

n t’ s] option to go forwa

rd and ple a d. He doe sn’ t ne c e s sa rily have to ha

v e a de a l." Tha

t c om m e n t is e a sily

distinguisha

b le from re m arks in c a se s in whic h the se nte nc ing c ourt viola

te d R ule 11 by e nc oura ging thede fe nda n t to a c c e pt a

ple a a g re e m e nt in orde r to a void therisk of a

m ore se ve re se nte nc e at tria l. Se e , e .g., Unite d State s v. Davila , 133 S. C t. 2139, 2143–44 (2013); B ruc e , 976 F.2d a t 555. He re , by c ontra st, the distric t c ourt took " no pa rt whate ve r" in pre -ple a

se nte nc ing 2disc ussions, B ruc e , 976 F.2d a t 556, a n d e x e rte d no " im

plic it or e xplic it pre ssure to se ttle . . . on te rm s favore d by the judge , " Unite d State s v. Fra nk , 36 F.3d 898, 903 (9th C ir. 1994). 2. The distric t c ourt’ s c om m e nt did not ren d e r De fe nda nt’ s ple a involunta

ry . Afte r re vie wing the re c ord in its e ntire ty , Unite d State s v. Ka c z y nski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th C ir. 2001), we c onc lude tha t the ple a wa s volunta

ry . De fe nda

nt sta te d unde r oath tha

t his ple a wa s volunta

ry , a n d we give suc h sta

te m e nts signific ant we i ght. Unite d State s v. Andra de -Larrios, 39 F.3d 986, 990–91 (9th C ir. 1994). Furthe rm ore , the stre ngth of thegove rnm e nt’ s c a se a ga inst De fe nda nt and his sta

te d de sire to a c c e pt re sponsibility

— and re c e i ve whate ve r se nte nc ing c re d it m ight be ava ila

ble

— provide d a

ra tiona l ba sis for his c ha

nge of ple a . Suc h a ra tiona l ba sis a lone m ay

se rve a s e vide nc e of a

ple a ’ s volunta

rine ss. Ka c z ynski, 239 F.3d a

t 1115. The distric t c ourt did not sugge st tha t it pre fe rre d

tha t De fe nda nt ple a d guilty , or tha

t it would be

una ble to c onduc t a

fa i r tria l if De fe nda

nt c hose to proc e e d to tria l. Ac c ordingly , De fe nda nt’ s ple a wa s volunta

ry be c a use he re m a ine d a

b le to " m ake a

fre e c hoic e am ong the a c c e pta ble a lte rnative s a

va ila ble ." Unite d State s v. He rnande z , 203 F.3d 614, 618 n.5 (9th C i r. 2000), ove rrule d on othe r grounds by

India na v. Edwa rds, 554 U.S. 164 (2008). AFFIRM E D. 3