Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Librado GONZALEZ-VALERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-12
Citations: 433 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 10-10258
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Librado GONZALEZ-VALERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Librado GONZALEZ-VALERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10258.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2011.
Filed May 12, 2011.
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason M. Hannan, Esquire, 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
Gonzalez-Valera claims that his December 3, 2009 group-plea hearing violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and his constitutional rights to due process and assistance of counsel. The record patently demonstrates that Gonzalez-Valera was sufficiently advised of his rights, that he affirmed his understanding of such rights, that he expressly waived such rights by pleading guilty, and that he received adequate representation by counsel. As we have held, any Rule 11 violations from this hearing were harmless, and the hearing did not violate either due process or the right to counsel. 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.