Cazares

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Madrigal-Cazares appeals his conviction and 77 month sentence for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Madrigal-Cazares contends that his conviction must be reversed because the district court erroneously advised him of the “nature of the charge” to which he was pleading guilty. Madrigal-Cazares specifically contends that the district court erred because it informed him of the nature of the crime of illegal re-entry, rather than the crime of being found in the United States without permission. Until the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Vonn, — U.S. -, -, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046 , — L.Ed.2d-(2002), we reviewed de novo whether a district court’s plea colloquy with a defendant satisfied 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. at 1046 , — L.Ed.2d-, at-. Here, we find that under either standard no Rule 11 violation occurred.

The record shows that during the plea colloquy, the district court specifically informed Madrigal-Cazares that the charge against…