United States v. Ryan Bonneau , 633 F. App'x 489 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30106
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00257-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RYAN FRANK BONNEAU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Frank Bonneau appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for conspiracy to
possess and distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bonneau’s
*
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).
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Bonneau filed a pro se supplemental
opening brief and also submitted a reply brief on December 7, 2015, which we
direct the Clerk to file. No answering brief has been filed.
Bonneau waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with three
exceptions not applicable here. Our independent review of the record pursuant to
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), 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). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
To the extent that Bonneau’s pro se arguments fall outside the scope of the
waiver, we reject them. Contrary to his contention, the district court properly
denied his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 because there was
no error in the judgment, which is consistent with the sentence to which the parties
agreed in the plea agreement. We decline to address Bonneau’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman,
642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Bonneau’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-30106