United States v. Victor Berrelleza-Verduzco

MEMORANDUM

Victor Berrelleza-Verduzco appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion to substitute counsel at sentencing. Berrelle-za-Verduzeo argues this court should vacate his plea and sentence because the district court did not address the “package deal” provision interlocking Berrelleza-Verduzco’s written plea agreement with four other co-defendants when reviewing the agreement in open court. Berrelleza-Verduzco argues this raises concerns about the voluntariness of his plea. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(b)(2).

While the prosecution did not comply with its duty to orally alert the district court that Berrelleza-Verduzco’s plea was part of a package deal with co-defendants, United States v. Caro, 997 F.2d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1993), Berrelleza-Verduzco failed to establish that this amounts to plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62-63 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Berrelleza-Verduzco has not alleged sufficient facts to support a conclusion that, but for the deficient colloquy •that failed to inquire into the package deal provision, it was reasonably probable that Berrelleza-Verduzco would not have pled guilty and would…