Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gaspar Arredondo HERRERA, aka Gaspar Herrera-Arredondo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-16
Citations: 134 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 04-30392
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gaspar Arredondo HERRERA, aka Gaspar Herrera-Arredondo, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gaspar Arredondo HERRERA, aka Gaspar Herrera-Arredondo, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30392.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2005.
Decided: June 16, 2005.
Donald E. Kresse, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
K. Elizabeth Dahlstrom, Esq., Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Gaspar Arredondo Herrera challenges his conviction by guilty plea for being an alien illegally in the United States following an order of removal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326. Defendant contends that the district court's violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 require us to vacate his guilty plea and conviction. We disagree.
1. Our decision in United States v. Van Doren, 182 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.1999), forecloses Defendant's argument that the district court committed plain error in failing to ask if anyone had forced Defendant to plead guilty.
2. Because Defendant was not placed under oath during the plea hearing, the district court was not required to inform Defendant that the government could use against him any statement that he gives under oath. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(A). Moreover, Defendant is unable to demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea," because he made no statement to.which the warning in Rule 11(b)(1)(A) would apply. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2336, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).
3. The sentence is remanded for processing in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Conviction AFFIRMED; sentence REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.