United States v. Lombardo Ceja-Gomez

MEMORANDUM

Lombardo Ceja-Gomez appeals his conviction following his guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Ceja-Gomez appeals his conviction based on deficiencies in his plea before the magistrate judge. During the change of plea hearing, the magistrate judge failed to inform Ceja-Gomez of the statutory penalties and did not explicitly inform Ceja-Gomez that he had the right to cross-examine witnesses at trial. We review Ceja-Gomez’s challenge based on failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 for plain error, as he did not move to withdraw his plea and raises the defects for the first time on appeal. United States v. Monzon, 429 F.3d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir.2005). Ceja-Gomez contends that the Rule 11 errors affected his substantial rights. See U.S. v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). We disagree.

The magistrate judge erred at the plea colloquy, but the record demonstrates…