United States v. Genchi-Angel, 3:18-mj-20277

On July 19–20, 2018, Juventino Genchi‑Angel was arrested for misdemeanor illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2)), pled guilty at his initial appearance, was sentenced to time‑served, and released the same day.
The plea hearing was a group proceeding: eight defendants appeared together with an interpreter; most advisements and responses were collective (e.g., "yes as to all").
The magistrate judge provided Rule 11 advisements collectively, and elicited a collective factual basis; defense counsel added a fact specific to Genchi (entered a quarter mile west of Otay Mesa Port of Entry).
Genchi did not object at the plea hearing that the judge failed to address him individually under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); he raised that objection for the first time on appeal to the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3402.
Genchi argued the magistrate’s failure to address him personally (and alleged coercive detention conditions at Border Patrol stations) rendered his plea involuntary and affected substantial rights.
The district court found a Rule 11(b)(1) error (failure to individually address the defendant) but concluded Genchi failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty absent the error; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate judge violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1) by not personally addressing Genchi during the plea colloquy	N/A (government defended the plea procedure)	Genchi: the court failed to question him individually as Rule 11(b)(1) requires	Court: Error occurred — the plea colloquy used only collective responses, which did not satisfy Rule 11(b)(1) (Arqueta‑Ramos controlling)
Standard of review for an unpreserved Rule 11 error	N/A	Genchi: appellate review should consider whether error affected substantial rights	Court: Plain‑error review applies (defense did not object at hearing); defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled otherwise
Whether Genchi demonstrated prejudice (that the error affected his substantial rights)	N/A	Genchi: alleged coercive conditions at Border Patrol stations and pressure to waive bond hearing coerced plea	Court: Genchi failed to show a reasonable probability he would have withdrawn plea; counsel met with him, counseled plea, supplemented factual basis, and there is no personal factual showing of coercion or incompetence
Remedy if plain error affected substantial rights	N/A	Genchi: requested vacatur and remand for further proceedings	Court: Because prejudice not established, no remedy; judgment and sentence affirmed

United States v. Arqueta‑Ramos, 730 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (group colloquies with collective responses do not satisfy Rule 11(b)(1)’s requirement that the court address each defendant personally)
United States v. Roblero‑Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to object at plea colloquy subjects Rule 11 errors to plain‑error review)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (elements of plain‑error review and remedy discretion)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea)