MEMORANDUM **

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 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.