USA V. JESUS FELIX-ENRIQUEZ, No. 13-10617 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10617 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00744-SRB v. MEMORANDUM* JESUS MARIA FELIX-ENRIQUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Linda R. Reade, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 18, 2014*** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jesus Maria Felix-Enriquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The government contends that this appeal is barred by an appeal waiver. Because the district court advised Felix-Enriquez that he could appeal, we decline to enforce the waiver. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1995). Felix-Enriquez contends that his guilty plea was invalid because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H) by advising him that he faced “a term of supervised release of at least three years,” rather than advising him that he faced a maximum life term of supervised release. Because Felix-Enriquez did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy before the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004). Felix-Enriquez has failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the Rule 11 error, he would not have pleaded guilty. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 13-10617
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.
