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. LEANDR O FELIPE RE GALADO,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50139

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-01753-B AS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ynthia A. B a sha nt, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Le andro Fe lipe R e ga la d o a 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 im

porta tion of c oc a ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a

nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we dism iss. 

# FIL ED OCT 03 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).R e ga la do c onte n ds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by not sua sponteoffe ring him an opportunity

to withdra

w his guilty

ple a a fte r the pa

rtie s disc o ve re d tha

t the pre -ple a c rim ina l history

re port ha d m ista

ke n ly c onc lude d tha

t he wa s not a

c are e r offe nde r. The gove rnm e nt re sponds tha t the a ppe a l wa ive r in R e ga la do’ s ple a a gre e m e nt ba

rs this a p pe a l . R e vie wing de novo, se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th C ir. 2009), wec onc lude tha t the wa i ve r is e nforc e a

b le . R e ga la do first c o nte nds tha t the wa i ve r is une nforc e a ble be c a u se the pa rtie s’ m utua l m ista

ke of fa c t re nde re d his ple a involunta

ry . The writte n ple a

a gre e m e nt e xpre s sly sta te d that R e ga la do c ould befound to bea c a re e r offe nde r a

nd e xpla ine d the e ffe c t tha

t would ha

ve on the c a lc ulation of his Guide line s ra nge . Additionally , at the c ha

nge of ple a

he aring, thedistric t

c o urt inform e d R e ga la do that the Guide line s c a lc ulation c ould bediffe re nt from c ounse l’ s e stim ate and tha t the c hoic e of se nte nc e wa s within the c ourt’ s sole disc re tion. Finally , R e g a la do ne ve r sought to withdra

w his ple a

in thedistric t c ourt, e ve n a fte r he le arne d of the m ista ke re ga rding his c are e r offe nde r status. On the se fa c ts, we c onc lude tha t R e ga la d o’ s ple a

wa s knowing a

nd volunta

ry . R e ga la do ne xt c o nte nds tha t the a ppe a l wa ive r is une nforc e a ble be c a u se the distric t c o urt viola

te d Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11(b)(1)(N) by fa iling to c onfirm t hat he unde rstood thete rm s of his waive r. W e re v i e w for pla in e rror, se e 1 5 - 5 0 1 3 9 2Unite d

State s v . Ma , 290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd find none . The c ourt e xpla ine d to R e ga la d o tha t he wa s wa i ving his right to a ppe a l e ve n if “ y ou don’ t likethe se nte n c e tha t I ultim ate l y

give y ou.” R e ga la do c onfirm e d tha t he unde rstood. Eve n if the c ourt e rre d by fa iling to re c ite the te rm s of the wa i ve r m ore spe c ific a l ly , tha

t e rror did not e ffe c t R e ga la do’ s substa ntia l rights. S

e eid. DISM I SSE D.

1 5 - 5 0 1 3 9 3