Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 516 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 11-50259
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 23, 2013.
Melanie K. Pierson, Warren Judd Williams, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney CR, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Fay Arfa, Esquire, Fay Ara, a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Jose Luis Castillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Castillo contends that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily in light of his inaudible responses at the change of plea hearing and his impaired mental state. Contrary to the government's argument, the appeal waiver in Castillo's plea agreement does not bar our consideration of his claim. See United States v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir.1999) (reaching defendant's claim that the plea was involuntary, despite appeal waiver, because "waivers of appeal must stand or fall with the agreement of which they are a part") (internal quotations omitted). Nevertheless, Castillo's claim fails.
We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo. See United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2010). Notwithstanding the portions of the transcript of the change of plea hearing that are marked "inaudible," the record reflects that Castillo's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Moreover, the record reflects that any mental health issues that Castillo may suffer did not impair his ability to enter a knowing plea.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.