United States v. Cristian Berrelleza-Verduzco

MEMORANDUM

Cristian Berrelleza-Verduzco appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm because the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the three reasons-Berrelleza-Verduzco offered for withdrawing his guilty plea.

1. Contrary to Berrelleza-Verduzco’s argument, Uni ted States v. Caro does not require setting aside his plea. 997 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Though package deal plea agreements are not per se impermissible, they pose an additional risk of coercion not present when the defendant is dealing with the government alone.”). Unlike in Caro , here the district court knew about the interdependence clause when it confirmed that Berrelleza-Verduzco pleaded guilty voluntarily. See id. at 659-60 . Moreover, Berrelleza-Verduzco has not argued that his codefendants pressured him to plead guilty. Contra id. at 659.

2. The record supports the district court’s findings that Berrelleza-Verduzco requested the involvement of a settlement judge in plea negotiations and that the settlement judge made no remarks influencing his decision to plead guilty. As a result, the settlement judge’s involvement does not require…