United States v. Ernesto Chavez

MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Figueroa Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and four-year sentence for conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3571(b)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the conviction but vacate and remand for re-sentencing.

Figueroa Chavez contends that his plea was invalid because the district court erred by allegedly failing to advise him of the full immigration consequences of his plea, including a potential 20-year bar to reentry. This argument fails because the district court has no obligation to make this advisement. See United States v. Delgado-Ramos, 635 F.3d 1237, 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (district court does not have a duty “to inform a defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea”). Contrary to Figueroa Chavez’s argument, nothing in Chaidez v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1103 , 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), undermines Delgado-Ramos .

Figueroa Chavez next contends that the district court committed procedural error at sentencing when it failed to calculate the Guidelines range. We…