
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerald Peter D’SOUZA, a.k.a. peter2033, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Michelle Rodriguez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerald Peter D’Souza, Taft, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerald Peter D’Souza appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

D’Souza pleaded guilty to use of a facility of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). D’Souza did not file a direct appeal, and over one year after he was sentenced, he filed the instant motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, challenging the factual basis underlying his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion.

The district court properly denied D’Souza’s motion because Rule 11 does not permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e) (“After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     