United States of America v. JOSE MEDINA-JIMENEZ, AKA Juan Ortiz-Ruiz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE MEDINA-JIMENEZ, AKA Juan
Ortiz-Ruiz,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50261
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00746-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Medina-Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We dismiss.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-50261
The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on the
appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. Medina-Jimenez responds that the
appeal waiver should not be enforced because the district court violated Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) by failing to inform him of, and determine
he understood, the terms of the waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant
has waived his right to appeal, and for plain error the adequacy of the plea
colloquy. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record reflects that, during the plea colloquy, the court addressed
Medina-Jimenez personally and confirmed that the plea agreement had been
translated for him, he had discussed the plea agreement, including the appeal
waiver provision, with his attorney, and he understood the rights he was waiving.
In addition, Medina-Jimenez confirmed in writing and orally that he had read the
entire plea agreement, understood its terms, and discussed it with his attorney. On
this record, any Rule 11 error did not affect Medina-Jimenez’s substantial rights.
See id. at 987. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in light of the valid appeal
waiver. See id.at 988.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --