NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10370
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00048-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GUILLERMO JUAREZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Juarez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction for illegal entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1325(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Juarez-Rodriguez contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) by failing to address him personally in a timely
manner. He also contends that the district court violated Rule 11(b)(2) by failing
to determine that his plea was voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or
promises. We review for harmless error. See United States v. Aguilar-Vera, 698
F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2012). Any Rule 11 error was harmless because there is
no indication in the record that Juarez-Rodriguez would have pled differently in
the absence of the alleged errors. See id. at 1201-02; United States v. Escamilla-
Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 101 (2012).
Juarez-Rodriguez also contends that the mass plea hearing violated his due
process rights. This argument lacks merit. See Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d at 1062.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10370