Delgado-Ramos

Jose Delgado-Ramos appeals his conviction for attempted entry after deportation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a)-(b), on the ground that the district court failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea during the plea colloquy. Delgado entered his plea without the benefit of a plea agreement. Because Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), was decided after he was sentenced, Delgado did not raise a Padilla argument to the district court. Therefore, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 63 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002); United States v. Recio, 371 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir.2004). Under this standard, a defendant must show that: (1) the district court committed an error; (2) the error was plain; (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Rec io, 371 F.3d at 1100 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to demonstrate that a non-structural error in a plea…