United States v. Irene Li ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10058
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00153-APG-
CWH-1
v.
IRENE LI, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 15, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and GLEASON,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Irene Li (“Li”) appeals her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Li was born in China and her native
language is Mandarin. She came to the United States in 1991, and has lived here
continuously ever since.
Li’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. We enforce an appellate
waiver as long as two conditions are met: (1) “the language of the waiver
encompasses [the] right to appeal on the grounds raised;” and (2) “the waiver was
knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th
Cir. 2004). Both of these conditions are met in Li’s case. We lack jurisdiction to
hear an appeal when there is a valid appellate waiver in the plea agreement. United
States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we must dismiss
Li’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Li argues that her guilty plea was invalid and the waiver unenforceable
principally because of interpretation problems. She claims (1) she was denied her
Sixth Amendment right to counsel due to her inability to communicate with her
lawyer; and (2) her plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered because she did
not understand her interpreter or understand how the American legal system
worked.
2
Li has not demonstrated that she was unable to communicate with her lawyer
despite the use of an interpreter. On the contrary, both Li and her lawyer
responded to questioning from the district court by saying they were able to
understand each other and communicate.
At the time of entering her plea, Li repeatedly affirmed that she understood
the nature of the charges against her and understood the nature of the rights she
was waiving. We afford a strong presumption of veracity to statements made by a
defendant at a guilty plea hearing. See United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1236
(9th Cir. 2008). Thus, given her contemporaneous statements regarding her
comprehension of the plea, Li has not demonstrated that her plea was involuntary
or unknowing.
DISMISSED.
3