United States v. Ronald McCullough ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 25 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    20-30137
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00007-SMJ-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    RONALD STEPHEN MCCULLOUGH,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 17, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
    Ronald Stephen McCullough appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 108-month sentence for possession with
    intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1),
    (b)(1)(B)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967),
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    McCullough’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,
    along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. McCullough has filed pro
    se supplemental opening and reply briefs, and the government has filed an
    answering brief.
    McCullough waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
    independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80
    (1988), and the parties’ briefs, discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the
    waiver. See United States v. Watson, 
    582 F.3d 974
    , 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
    McCullough’s pro se challenges to the district court’s imposition of a two-level
    enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon, and to the substantive
    reasonableness of his sentence, are encompassed by the waiver. See United States
    v. Martinez, 
    143 F.3d 1266
    , 1271 (9th Cir. 1998) (“When a plea agreement
    expressly waives a defendant’s right to appeal a sentence, the waiver extends to an
    appeal based on an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.”).
    Furthermore, the record reflects that, during the change of plea hearing, the district
    court correctly advised McCullough as to the terms of the waiver and confirmed
    his understanding of those terms. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). Even
    assuming McCullough is correct that the court’s description of the waiver at the
    subsequent sentencing hearing was ambiguous, the record makes clear that the
    court did not provide McCullough an unqualified advisement that he could appeal
    2                                    20-30137
    his sentence. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 
    704 F.3d 616
    , 620 (9th Cir.
    2012) (oral advisement of the right to appeal vitiates written waiver only if oral
    advisement is made “unequivocally, clearly, and without qualification”). Finally,
    to the extent McCullough argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance
    by failing to explain the waiver adequately, we do not reach that claim on direct
    appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 
    642 F.3d 1257
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
    In light of the enforceable appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See
    Watson, 
    582 F.3d at 988
    .
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. McCullough’s pro se motion
    for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
    DISMISSED.
    3                                    20-30137
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-30137

Filed Date: 8/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/25/2021