Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador VASQUEZ-GARAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-23
Citations: 198 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 05-50268
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador VASQUEZ-GARAY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 198
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador VASQUEZ-GARAY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50268.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 16, 2006.
Filed Aug. 23, 2006.
Jill Feeney, Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gretchen Fusilier, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, J. Thomas Logan, Esq., Law Office of J. Thomas Logan, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Salvador Vasquez-Garay appeals his conviction and a condition of the term of supervised release imposed by the district court for being an alien who improperly entered the United States. The facts and procedural history are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.
First, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vasquez-Garay's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because he has not presented a "fair and just reason" to support the motion "that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea," see United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted), and he long delayed in filing his motion, see United States v. Nostratis, 321 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.2003).
Second, the district court's imposition of a sentencing condition ordering VasquezGaray to report to his probation officer upon re-entry did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.