Miranda

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Briseno Miranda appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Miranda contends that the district court erred in taking his guilty plea because the court: (1) failed to sua sponte conduct a competency hearing; and (2) did not comply with several requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Where the district court has made a determination of competency, we review that finding for clear error. See United States v. Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1991). Because Miranda failed to raise the alleged Rule 11 errors before the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, — U.S. — 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).

The district court made a finding of competency at the conclusion of its colloquy with the defendant at the change of plea hearing. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398-99 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (holding that the *30 standard for…