United States v. Armando Ramirez-Valadez

MEMORANDUM

Armando Ramirez-Valadez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), with an enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(2). He claims that his guilty plea was not intelligent and was thus involuntary because he was unaware and not informed of his constitutional trial rights. He also contends that the district court’s failure to advise him of his rights pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes plain error. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the conviction.

I

Ramirez-Valadez first argues that his plea is invalid because the district court’s failure to inform him of his trial rights meant that he did not intelligently enter his plea. We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo. United States v. Gaither, 245 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.2001).

A criminal defendant must have an understanding of the trial rights he is putatively waiving. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). However, a valid conviction does not require specific articulation of these rights so long as the plea is voluntary, intelligent, and performed with sufficient awareness of the…