United States v. Arqueta-Ramos, No. 10-10618 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a conviction for illegally entering the United States and remanded in a case in which the defendant pled guilty during an “Operation Streamline” proceeding for the taking of pleas en masse. The panel held that although the district court did not err under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1) by advising the defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning the defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights. The panel held that questioning defendants in groups of five – collectively asking each group several questions to ascertain whether the defendants understood their rights and consequences of their pleas, and accepting “all answer yes” and “all answer no” responses to these questions – cannot render the court’s general advisement sufficiently personal so as to satisfy Rule 11(b)(1). The panel concluded that the government did not carry its burden of proving that the defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Rule 11 error.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.