Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe Alejandro BRAVO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-09
Citations: 468 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 11-50154
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe Alejandro BRAVO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe Alejandro BRAVO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50154.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2012.
Filed Feb. 9, 2012.
Timothy C. Perry, Bruce R. Castetter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kristi A. Hughes, Sarah Marie Gorman, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The district court set out the proper mens rea terms by using the model jury instructions. While the court's additional formulations were less clear, the first didn't plainly negate the crime's purpose requirement, and the second made the uncontroversial point that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This fails to meet the high standard for plain error. See United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.1999).
2. The district court didn't punish Bravo-Perez for exercising his constitutional right to go to trial, but instead explained that Bravo-Perez "went to trial, so he doesn't get the reward of pleading." That's permissible, see United States v. Morris, 827 F.2d 1348, 1352-53 (9th Cir.1987), and it's accurate here: Had Bravo-Perez pled guilty, he would have received sentence reductions for acceptance of responsibility and fast-track pleading.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.