United States v. 2020-10-22 | 18-50398 | USA V. ANTONIO OROZCO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO ENRIQUE OROZCO, AKA El
Sr,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50398

D.C. No.
2:17-cr-00203-DSF-17

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 6, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,
***
District Judge.

Appellant Antonio Enrique Orozco (Orozco) appeals from the final
judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

*
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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED

OCT 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
§ 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling.
The parties dispute the applicable standard of review in this appeal.
However, we need not resolve this issue because even applying de novo review,
Orozco’s challenge fails. See Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir.
2017) (avoiding the issue by applying the less deferential de novo review and
affirming the district court). This Court “will generally enforce the plain language
of a plea agreement if it is clear and unambiguous on its face.” United States v. Lo,
839 F.3d 777, 783 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). In other words, “[c]ourts
enforce the literal terms of a plea agreement, construing ambiguities in favor of the
defendant.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 417 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United
States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Quach,
302 F.3d 1096, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2002)).
We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and the record in this case. The
wording of the relevant provisions of the agreement are unambiguous, and all
parties have complied with their obligations under the agreement.
AFFIRMED.