Hinojos-Ruiz

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Hinojos-Ruiz appeals his guilty plea conviction for two counts of improper entry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a). Because Hinojos-Ruiz waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999) (“It would overreach our jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the plea agreement effectively deprived us of jurisdiction.”).

Hinojos-Ruiz contends that the denial of his motion to substitute counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and rendered his guilty plea involuntary. We disagree.

The denial of a substitution motion deprives the defendant of effective assistance of counsel only “if [he] and his attorney are embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict.” United States v. Fagan, 996 F.2d *841 1009, 1014 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation omitted). The magistrate judge conducted a full inquiry and correctly determined that the alleged conflict between Hinojos-Ruiz and his attorney did not result “in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.” See id. at 1014-15 . In fact, Hinojos-Ruiz…