United States v. Barahona-Castro

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-264
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-264 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:23-cr-01379-JJT-1 v. MEMORANDUM* PABLO BARAHONA-CASTRO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Barahona-Castro appeals his sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment

followed by three years of supervised release for a conviction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and enhanced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Barahona-Castro concedes that he waived his right to appeal in his plea

agreement. But he argues that the appellate waiver is unenforceable because the

magistrate judge incorrectly stated that the maximum sentence for his offense was

two years, violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “An appeal

waiver will not apply if . . . a defendant’s guilty plea failed to comply with [Rule

11.]” United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing United States

v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246, 1252 (9th Cir. 1999)). Because Barahona-Castro

did not object to the alleged Rule 11 violation, we review for plain error. United

States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 80 (2004). “To establish plain error

the defendant must show ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affected substantial

rights, and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of

the judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir.

2010) (quoting United States v. Benz, 472 F.3d 657, 658–59 (9th Cir. 2006)).

The government concedes the first two elements of the plain error analysis.

But Barahona-Castro fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights

because he requested a custodial sentence exceeding two years’ imprisonment and

received a substantial benefit from his guilty plea—the termination of supervised

release in a different criminal case. See id. at 1050. Given these facts, and his

statement during the sentencing hearing that he had reviewed and did not object to

2 24-264 the presentence investigation report, which correctly identified the maximum

sentence as ten years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, he has

also not shown that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

the judicial proceedings. Cf. Benz, 472 F.3d at 661 (explaining that because the

record suggested that the defendant was unaware of the mandatory minimum

sentence at sentencing, the failure to inform him of such affected the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings). Barahona-Castro’s

appellate waiver is therefore enforceable. We affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-264