Court Opinion

ID: 2669685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-11 20:36:31.513752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.481151
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              APR 11 2014

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 13-10378

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01852-JGZ

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
DAVID ERASMO ESCAMILLA-
GALLEGOS, a.k.a. David Erasmo
Ecsamilla,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted April 7, 2014**

Before:        TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      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,

239 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.

                                           2                                    13-10378