United States v. Ruben Castro

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50521
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00599-CAS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RUBEN CASTRO, AKA Nite Owl, AKA
Tecolote, AKA Teco,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 5, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, ***
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant Ruben Castro appeals the denial of his Motion to
Withdraw Guilty Pleas. Castro was indicted in the Central District of California on
one count of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”)
Conspiracy, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and two counts of Conspiracy to
Distribute Controlled Substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 846. Castro, proceeding
pro se but with the assistance of standby counsel, pled guilty as charged without a
formal plea agreement to all three counts after a Rule 11 plea colloquy.1 Shortly
thereafter, Castro moved to withdraw those pleas; that motion was denied. This
appeal timely followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
To ensure that a defendant’s guilty plea is knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily made, a district court must advise the defendant of—and confirm the
defendant understands—his rights, the nature of the charges against him, and the
consequences of pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The court also must
assure itself that there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
Once the plea of guilty has been accepted by the district court, a defendant may
withdraw that plea prior to sentencing if he “can show a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A district court’s denial
1
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
2
of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro’s motion to
withdraw his pleas. The record as a whole demonstrates that Castro was
adequately advised of the nature of the charges against him and voluntarily pled
guilty to them. Further, the government’s proffer and Castro’s admissions
provided a sufficient factual basis for his pleas. Castro has not shown a fair and
just reason why he should be permitted to withdraw his pleas.
AFFIRMED.
3