United States v. Cristian Berrelleza-Verduzco , 655 F. App'x 566 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 12 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30211
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00062-RSL-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CRISTIAN BERRELLEZA-VERDUZCO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: PAEZ, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Cristian Berrelleza-Verduzco appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm because the district court did not
abuse its discretion in rejecting the three reasons Berrelleza-Verduzco offered for
withdrawing his guilty plea.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. Contrary to Berrelleza-Verduzco’s argument, United States v. Caro
does not require setting aside his plea. 997 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Though
package deal plea agreements are not per se impermissible, they pose an additional
risk of coercion not present when the defendant is dealing with the government
alone.”). Unlike in Caro, here the district court knew about the interdependence
clause when it confirmed that Berrelleza-Verduzco pleaded guilty voluntarily. See
id. at 659-60. Moreover, Berrelleza-Verduzco has not argued that his codefendants
pressured him to plead guilty. Contra id. at 659.
2. The record supports the district court’s findings that Berrelleza-
Verduzco requested the involvement of a settlement judge in plea negotiations and
that the settlement judge made no remarks influencing his decision to plead guilty.
As a result, the settlement judge’s involvement does not require setting aside the
guilty plea. See United States v. Davila, —U.S.—, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2143 (2013)
(“[V]acatur of the plea is not in order if the record shows no prejudice to [the
defendant’s] decision to plead guilty.”); see also United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d
1246, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 2015).
3. The district court’s finding that Berrelleza-Verduzco’s former counsel
was not ineffective is supported by Berrelleza-Verduzco’s representations at the
plea colloquy, his testimony at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, and
2
his former counsel’s declaration. The district court therefore did not err in
concluding that Berrelleza-Verduzco was not deprived of legal advice that would
have plausibly motivated him to proceed to trial rather than plead guilty. See
United States v. Bonilla, 637 F.3d 980, 983-84 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
3