United States v. Charles Miguel , 696 F. App'x 240 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30015
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00110-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES DOUGLAS MIGUEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Charles Douglas Miguel appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed for
violations of the Mann Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and for tampering
with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1512(b)(1). We dismiss.
*
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).
Miguel argues that the district court erred by failing to inquire into the
voluntariness of his guilty plea when, during Miguel’s allocution at the sentencing
hearing, he requested a lower sentence than was stipulated to in his plea agreement.
The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We
review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United
States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal
waiver in Miguel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal. See id.
at 1205-06. Contrary to Miguel’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his
appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d
974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009), and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary,
United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover,
the record belies Miguel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had
the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th
Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal
by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss
pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207.
DISMISSED.
2 16-30015