Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fausto Enrique URIAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-09
Citations: 616 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 13-30321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fausto Enrique URIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fausto Enrique URIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30321.
United States Court of Appeals, ■ Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2015.
Filed Sept. 9, 2015,
Michael J. Fiea, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kelly Kenneth Kumm, Kumm Law Offices, PLLC, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, GOULD, and IKUTA, 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
Fausto Enrique Urias appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Urias contends that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 during the plea colloquy, and that this constitutes reversible error. Because Urias's counsel failed to raise these objections at trial, we review for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not inform Urias of the plea-agreement provision waiving his right to appeal, advise Urias that he had no right to withdraw the plea if the court did not follow the recommendation or request, or inform Urias that the agreed disposition would be included in the judgment, as required by Rule 11. See Fed. R. Crim P. 11(b)(1)(N), 11(c)(3)(B), and 11(c)(4). However, Urias has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability that, but for these errors, he would not have entered the plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) ("[A] defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.").
The record does not support Urias's contention that the parties failed to disclose the plea agreement in open court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(2). AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.