Court Opinion

ID: 9370075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 19:00:33.928857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.149232
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               FEB 10 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   21-50271

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
                                                 8:18-cr-00213-ODW-3
 v.

GERMAN BASTIDAS NUNEZ, AKA                       MEMORANDUM*
Cheque,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 8, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      German Bastidas Nunez appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy

to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, pursuant to a written plea

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agreement. In the agreement, he waived the right to appeal except for a claim that

his plea was involuntary.

      He now contends that his appeal may nevertheless be maintained because

the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in failing to

adequately advise him of the appellate waiver and forfeiture provisions in the

agreement. He seeks to come within the exception to enforcement of an appellate

waiver where there has been a violation of Rule 11. See United States v. Bibler,

495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007).

      Nunez did not raise any issue in the district court with respect to Rule 11, so

our review must be for plain error. United States v. David, 36 F.4th 1214, 1217

(9th Cir. 2022). This requires the appellant to show the error affected his

substantial rights, i.e., that there was a reasonable probability he would not have

entered the plea if properly advised under Rule 11. United States v. Dominguez

Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

      Nunez cannot make this showing. At the change of plea hearing, the

appellate waiver was fully discussed, and Nunez acknowledged it. The conditions

of the forfeiture were also discussed. The parties agree that no final order of

forfeiture was ever entered, but there is no suggestion that Nunez would have

                                           2
changed his plea had one been entered. There was no plain error and the appeal

waiver in the plea agreement must be enforced.

      DISMISSED.

                                        3