United States of America v. Guadalupe Alejandro Bravo- Perez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GUADALUPE ALEJANDRO BRAVO-
PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50154
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03413-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH,
Circuit Judges.
1. The district court set out the proper mens rea terms by using the model
jury instructions. While the court’s additional formulations were less clear, the
FILED
FEB 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
first didn’t plainly negate the crime’s purpose requirement, and the second made
the uncontroversial point that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This fails to meet
the high standard for plain error. See United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d
947, 953 (9th Cir. 1999).
2. The district court didn’t punish Bravo-Perez for exercising his
constitutional right to go to trial, but instead explained that Bravo-Perez “went to
trial, so he doesn’t get the reward of pleading.” That’s permissible, see United
States v. Morris, 827 F.2d 1348, 1352–53 (9th Cir. 1987), and it’s accurate here:
Had Bravo-Perez pled guilty, he would have received sentence reductions for
acceptance of responsibility and fast-track pleading.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --