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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IGUEL M OR

ALES-M ATA, AKA Jose Ga lloso, AKA Jose G a lloso Gonz a le z , AKA Jose G. Gonz a le s, AKA Alfonso Sanc he z , AKA Antonio R . San c he z , AKA Antonio Sa

nc h e z -R a m ire z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30176

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-05401-R B L-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 R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2015 * * Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, R

AW LINSON, a

nd C A LLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED APR 15 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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).M igue l M ora le s-M ata a ppe a ls his c onvic tion by guilty ple a and se nte nc e for posse s sion of 50 gra

m s or m ore of m e tha

m phe tam ine with intent to distribute , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)(1)(B ). He argue s tha t his c onvic tion is inva

lid a nd his a ppe lla te wa i ve r is une nforc e a

ble due to ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. He a lso a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt im

pe rm issibly

c oe rc e d him

into withdra

wing his m otion for substitution of c ounse l a nd disc o ura ge d him

from withdra wing his guilty ple a . W e a ffirm

his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e . W e are not c onvinc e d tha t by re que sting re m and without vac at ur of the ple a a gre e m e nt M ora le s-M ata

ha s pushe d this c a s e be y ond the c onfine s of Artic l e III’ s c a se -or-c ontrove rsy

re quire m e nt. U.S. C onst. a rt. III, § 2, c l. 1. B ut we ne e d not re a c h this issue

of c onstitutiona

l im port be c a use M ora le s-M ata ’ s de c ision not to se e k va c atur of the ple a

a gre e m e nt c le arly unde rm ine s his c la im s for a nothe r re a s on. Ha

ving fa ile d

to a sse rt tha

t he would not ha

ve e nte re d into the ple a a gre e m e nt a

bse nt the a lle ge d

e rrors, his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l a

nd R ule 11-ba s e d c la im s m

u st be de n i e d for la c k of pre judic e . Unite d State

s v . Domingue

z Be nite z , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) ( “ [A] de fe nda nt who se e k s re ve rsa l of his c onvic tion a fte r a guilty ple a , on the ground tha t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d pla in e rror unde r R

ule 11, m u st show a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for thee rror, he would not ha

ve e nte re d the ple a .” ); Iae a v . Sunn , 800 F.2d 861, 865 (9th C ir. 1986) 2(“ [T] o sa

t isfy the pre judic e c o m

pone nt in thec onte x t of a guilty ple a , the de fe nda

nt m ust show tha

t the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility that, but for c ounse l ’ s e rrors, he would not ha

ve ple a de d guilty

and would ha

ve insiste d on going to tria l.” (quota tion m arks om itte d)). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t M ora le s -M at a

doe s not ne e d to show pre judic e in orde r to pre va il on his re m a ining a rgum e nt, tha

t the distric t

c o urt c oe rc e d him

into withdra wing his motion to substitute his c ourt-a

p pointe d c ounse l, tha

t c l a im a lso fa ils. Se eUnite d S

t ate s v . Gonzale

z-Lope z , 548 U.S. 140, 151-52 (2006) (ruling that a tria l c ourt’ s e rrone ous depriva tion of a de fe nda nt’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c o unse l of c h oic e is struc tura l e rror, but sta ting tha t this ruledoe s not a

pply to de fe nda nts who re quire c ounse l to bea p pointe d for the m ). The transc ript shows that the distric t c ourt thoughtfully fulfille d its duty to que stion M ora l e s-M ata and his a ttorne y “ priva te ly and in depth” in orde r to a sc e rta in whe t he r substitution of c ounse l wa s ne c e s sa

ry . U nite d State

s v . N guy e n, 262 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th C ir. 2001). Thedistric t c ourt did not im pe rm issibly

pre ssure M ora le s-M at a . Se e Unite d State s v . Re y e s-Bosque , 596 F.3d 1017, 1033 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ B e fore ruling on a m otion to substitute c ounse l due to a

n irre c onc i la

ble c onflic t, a

distric t c ourt m ust c o nduc t suc h ne c e ssa

ry inquiry a s m ight e a se the de fe nda nt’ s

3dissa

tisfa c tion, distrust, a

nd c o nc e rn[,] . . . . [a

nd] give the c ourt a

suffic i e nt ba sis for re a c hing a

n inform e d de c ision.”(quota tion m arks om itte d)). For the se re a sons, thedistric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is A FFIRM E D .

4