Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Erasmo ESCAMILLA-GALLEGOS, a.k.a. David Erasmo Ecsamilla, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-11
Citations: 568 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 13-10378
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Erasmo ESCAMILLA-GALLE-GOS, a.k.a. David Erasmo Ecsamil-la, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 500–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Erasmo ESCAMILLA-GALLE-GOS, a.k.a. David Erasmo Ecsamil-la, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 11, 2014.
Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alfred Islas, Alfred Islas, Attorney-at-Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Erasmo Escamilla-Gallegos, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, 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
David Erasmo Escamilla-Gallegos appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Escamilla-Gallegos contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because, at the time of his pretrial conference and change-of-plea hearing, his confusion was apparent and was aggravated by his recent use of pain medication. We review de novo whether a defendant's plea was voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 289 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2001). Contrary to Escamilla-Gallegos's contention, his statements at the hearing reflect that he pleaded guilty voluntarily. See id. at 1115 (substantial weight is given to defendant's in-court statements).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.