Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MEMEHUA-MIXTECAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-12
Citations: 432 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 10-10324
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MEMEHUA-MIXTECAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MEMEHUA-MIXTECAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10324.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2011.
Filed May 12, 2011.
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Saul M. Huerta, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
The Honorable Tena Campbell, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Memehua-Mixtecal claims that his December 3, 2009 group-plea hearing violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The record patently demonstrates that Memehua-Mixtecal was sufficiently advised of his rights, that he af firmed his understanding of such rights, and that he expressly waived such rights by pleading guilty. As we have held, any Rule 11 violations from this hearing were harmless, and the hearing did not violate due process. See United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.