Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago OSUNA-CHINO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-05
Citations: 548 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 12-50432
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago OSUNA-CHINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 396–396

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago OSUNA-CHINO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50432.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 5, 2013.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office Of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn Howard Ball, Law Office Of Lynn H. Ball, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Santiago Osuna-Chino appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
On appeal, Osuna-Chino contends for the first time that his conviction should be vacated because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(E) when it failed to inform him expressly that he had a right to testify and that, by pleading guilty, he would be giving up that right. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004), and find none. The district court advised Osuna-Chino that he had "the right to put on a defense." Even if this was not sufficient to comply with the rule, given the strength of the government's case and the substantial benefit Osuna-Chino obtained by pleading guilty, he cannot demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights. See id. at 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333 (to prevail on plain error review, a defendant "must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.