United States v. Eduardo Sanchez-Calderon

438 F. App'x 586

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Because Sanchez-Calderon’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the § 1326(a) violation was based on a claim of “[ejrroneous or inadequate legal advice” regarding the possibility of a collateral attack on his 1994 deportation order, there was no requirement that he cite a “reason for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea,” just that he show that this advice could “plausibly ... have motivated his decision to plead guilty.” United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). But while the district court applied the wrong legal standard in considering Sanchez-Calderon’s motion, any error is harmless because Sanchez-Calderon’s 2006 deportation order, which he admitted and does not challenge on appeal, provided a separate basis for the § 1326 prosecution at issue, and a reasonable person with no defense to one of the deportation orders underlying his criminal prosecution would have pled guilty regardless of the invalidity of an earlier, separate deportation proceeding. See United States v. Mayweather, 634 F.3d 498, 504-05 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.