United States of America v. MANUEL AGUILAR-GODINEZ, AKA Guillermo Govea-Pena, AKA Guillermo Guvea

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL AGUILAR-GODINEZ, AKA
Guillermo Govea-Pena, AKA Guillermo
Guvea,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10519
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00570-GEB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 11, 2015**
San Francisco California
Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Aguilar-Godinez pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess a
chemical to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
FILED
MAR 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

841(c)(2). The district court applied two sentencing enhancements that Aguilar-
Godinez now challenges on appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal. As
part of his plea agreement, Aguilar-Godinez waived the “right to appeal any aspect
of the sentence imposed in this case.” Aguilar-Godinez entered into the plea deal
knowingly and voluntarily and stated that he understood the terms. United States
v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A defendant’s waiver of his appellate
rights is enforceable if the language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal
on the grounds raised, and if the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made.”).
Aguilar-Godinez argues that the sentencing enhancements nevertheless must
be vacated, because the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1) by failing
to address the defendant personally regarding the plea terms. Applying plain-error
review, we disagree. See United States v. Ma, 290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.
2002). The district court asked the prosecutor to summarize the terms of the plea
agreement—including the waiver of appeal rights—and personally addressed
Aguilar-Godinez to confirm that he understood those terms. Id.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --