Guzman-Hernandez

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Guzman-Hernandez appeals his conviction and 96 month sentence for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Guzman-Hernandez contends that his conviction must be reversed because the district court erred by failing to advise him of the specific elements and not ensuring that he understood the “nature of the charge” to which he was pleading guilty. Until the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Vonn, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1043 , — L.Ed.2d - (2002), we reviewed de novo whether a district court’s plea colloquy with a defendant satisified Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. However, under Vonn , a defendant who fails to object to a Rule 11 violation in the district court must show plain error. Vonn , — U.S.-, at -, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1045 , — L.Ed.2d -, at -. Here, we find that under either standard no Rule 11 violation occurred as a review of the plea colloquy demonstrates that Guzman-Hernandez was informed of and understood the nature of the charge against him. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1), see United States v. Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir.1983) (providing that a plea colloquy pursuant to…