Towne

MEMORANDUM *

The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, and thus we do not repeat them here.

The fact that Towne’s plea was part of a package deal does not, per se, render it involuntary. See United States v. Caro, 997 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.1993). Although Towne’s guilty plea memorandum failed to note its package deal nature and the prosecutor did not alert the state district court to this fact at the plea hearing, these defects were remedied by the post-conviction hearing conducted by the state court judge who accepted the plea. See United States v. Pricepaul, 540 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir.1976).

More specifically, Towne argues his plea was involuntary because his counsel told him he was the final holdout and that at least one other co-defendant was told the same thing. Towne contends this establishes that his counsel lied to him, resulting in a coerced plea, because only one co-defendant could have been the last to agree to the package. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir.1986). Towne also *875 argues his plea was coerced because he was told that if he…