Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cecil FRANCIS, III, aka Ken Dimepiece USA; et al., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 286 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 07-50192
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cecil FRANCIS, III, aka Ken Dimepiece USA; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cecil FRANCIS, III, aka Ken Dimepiece USA; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50192.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 16, 2008.
Filed Aug. 6, 2008.
Cheryl O’Connor Murphy, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David James Zugman, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, Kenneth Cecil Fran cis, III, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francis argues that the district court failed to advise him of certain rights before his guilty plea. Though there were deficiencies in the plea colloquy, Francis was otherwise informed of his rights, and he has not demonstrated that, but for the deficiencies, he would not have entered his plea. United States v. Dominguez Beni-tez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).
Francis further argues that his sentence was unreasonably high. However, as the district court explained, Francis received a 135-month sentence, instead of a higher one, because 135 months is within the guidelines range contemplated by his plea agreement. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2469, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.