22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47c,MEMORANDUM Juan Jose De Los Santos-Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Santos-Orozco contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not fully comprehend the nature of pleading guilty without a plea agreement, rather than accepting the plea agreement offered by the government. We review de novo. See United States v. Carter, 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2015). The record reflects that the district court explained to Santos-Orozco the effect of pleading guilty both under the proposed plea agreement and without the benefit of that agreement. Contrary to Santos-Orozco’s contention, his statements at the hearing reflect that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial weight is given to defendant’s in-court statements). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a9,

MEMORANDUM

Juan Jose De Los Santos-Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Santos-Orozco contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not fully comprehend the nature of pleading guilty without a plea agreement, rather than accepting the plea agreement offered by the government. We review de novo. See United States v. Carter, 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2015). The record reflects that the district court explained to Santos-Orozco the effect of pleading guilty both under the proposed plea agreement and without the benefit of that agreement. Contrary to Santos-Orozco’s contention, his statements at the hearing reflect that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial weight is given to defendant’s in-court statements).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.