Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yesmin Miseal Medina Vargas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and signed a plea agreement waiving most appellate rights. The agreement and a separate advisal were translated into Spanish, Vargas was represented by counsel, and an interpreter assisted him. The district court imposed 121 months in prison after applying a two-level leadership enhancement.
On appeal, Vargas argued that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive review and that the plea colloquy failed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N), which requires the court to address an appeal-waiver provision. He pointed to his statement that he had discussed the waiver with counsel “not that much” and understood it “more or less.” He then sought review of the leadership enhancement.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the waiver was enforceable. The panel examined the surrounding circumstances: counsel represented Vargas when he signed; the documents were translated; Vargas confirmed that he had reviewed every part with counsel; and the signed advisal expressly acknowledged the waiver. Those facts showed a knowing and voluntary agreement whose language covered the sentencing issue.
The district court also satisfied Rule 11. After Vargas expressed uncertainty, the judge explained that a lawful sentence would leave only limited grounds for appeal, asked again whether counsel had reviewed the paragraph with him, and received confirmation that he understood. Any conceivable Rule 11 error did not affect substantial rights because Vargas did not show a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea absent the error. The leadership-enhancement challenge fell outside every preserved exception, and the record did not meet the newly recognized miscarriage-of-justice exception.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal waiver is assessed from the agreement’s language and the full circumstances surrounding signature and entry of the plea.
- Translation, interpreter assistance, counsel’s participation, and a separate signed advisal can strongly support enforceability.
- A judge should respond to equivocal answers during the plea colloquy with a concrete explanation and renewed confirmation rather than moving on.
- To obtain plain-error relief, a defendant must connect the claimed Rule 11 defect to the decision to plead guilty, not merely identify imperfect wording.
Why It Matters
For defense counsel, the memorandum underscores the importance of documenting a line-by-line review of waivers with clients who use an interpreter. Any uncertainty voiced in court should be resolved on the record, and counsel should explain which sentencing objections remain appealable before the agreement is signed.
For prosecutors and trial judges, a translated written record does not eliminate the need for a careful oral colloquy, but it can corroborate the defendant’s answers. Because this is an unpublished disposition, it generally is not precedent; its practical value lies in showing how the Ninth Circuit evaluates the complete plea record when one response appears ambiguous.
The panel’s analysis also shows that one hesitant answer is read in context rather than isolation. The court looked at the judge’s follow-up, the written acknowledgments, translation, counsel’s assistance, and Vargas’s ultimate confirmation. Defense lawyers who believe a client remains uncertain should request additional time or clarification before the plea is accepted; attempting to reconstruct uncertainty only after sentencing is substantially harder. Conversely, a court should avoid formulaic questioning and ensure that the defendant understands the practical consequence: most challenges to the conviction and sentence will be unavailable.