Aranda

REDACTED MEMORANDUM

Javier Covarrubias and Esperidion Ar-anda appeal their convictions based on er rors at their Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 plea colloquies. They also appeal the district court’s denial of their respective motions to withdraw their guilty pleas. [REDACTED] We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the adequacy of a Rule 11 plea colloquy de novo. United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir.2008). A Rule 11 mistake not preserved by timely objection below is subject to plain error review. Id. But when a Rule 11 mistake is raised below as a basis for withdrawal of a guilty plea, we review for harmless error. United States v. Villalobos, 333 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2003). A district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ensminger, 567 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir.2009).

Both Covarrubias and Aranda were misinformed at their plea colloquies that their sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) would run concurrently with their other sentences. The statute requires that any sentence imposed thereunder run consecutively to any other sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924…