Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adan Rosales GONZAGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-08
Citations: 459 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 10-50369
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adan Rosales GONZAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adan Rosales GONZAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50369.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted and Filed Nov. 8, 2011.
Vibhav Mittal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esquire, Sono-ma, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Adan Rosales Gonzaga, Littleton, CO, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, 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
Adan Rosales Gonzaga appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and for aiding and abetting possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and § (2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzaga contends that the district court did not fully comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2) by failing to inquire whether his guilty plea was the result of force or threats. Although the district court erred in its plea colloquy, Gonzaga has failed to establish a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 88, 124 S.Ct. 2838, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.