Pacheo-Navarette

DISCUSSION

I. Validity of Pacheco’s Guilty Plea

Pacheco challenges the validity of his guilty plea because the district court failed to advise him of his right to have a jury determine the facts upon which any sentence enhance- ments under the Guidelines were predicated, a right recog- nized by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We review the adequacy of a guilty plea colloquy de novo. United States v. Villalobos, 333 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2003).

[1] Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 obligated the district court to describe to Pacheco the consequences of his plea that had “a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of [his] punishment.” United States v. Lit- 1 At sentencing, Pacheco could have moved to withdraw his guilty plea for the “fair and just reason” of an intervening Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2004). He did not do so. Instead, noting the change in law after Blakely, Pacheco’s attor- ney declared, “[Pacheco] does not wish to withdraw from the plea agree- ment. He wishes you to sentence him in accordance to [sic] it . . . .” 16680 UNITED STATES v.…