NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10094
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01766-CKJ-
LAB-1
v.
MANUEL SALAIS-VASQUEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 9, 2015**
San Francisco California
Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and DAVIS,*** Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Manuel Salais-Vasquez appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence
for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review for plain error a claim of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 violation where,
as here, the defendant failed to raise the issue below. United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 59 (2002). The defendant must show: “(1) an error (2) that was clear or
obvious, (3) that affected substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affected the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.
Castillo-Marin, 684 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2012). An error under Rule 11 that
affects substantial rights is one for which the defendant can show “a reasonable
probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United
States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).
We conclude the district court’s failure to provide a general warning as to
the immigration consequences of a guilty plea was not reversible error because
Salais-Vasquez has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he
would not have pled guilty. The district court erred by failing to warn Salais-
Vasquez that he would be denied citizenship or admission, as Rule 11 and the
Advisory Committee Notes require. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(O); Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes, 2013 Amendment, Subdivision (b)(1)(O).
2
However, this error did not affect Salais-Vasquez’s substantial rights. See
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. Salais-Vasquez was already aware, because of
his prior deportation as an alien convicted of murder and kidnapping, that he would
be denied re-entry and citizenship. That Salais-Vasquez knew he crossed the
border illegally confirms he understood he could not enter legally. His guilty plea
here did not change his immigration status, except as to his removal, of which he
was informed by the Magistrate Judge.
AFFIRMED.
3