United States v. Raymond Juarez ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-16145
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos.
2:16-cv-01376-JCM
v. 2:11-cr-00091-JCM-CWH-1
RAYMOND JUAREZ,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Juarez appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hill,
915 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.
*
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).
Juarez contends that his conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) must be vacated because Hobbs Act robbery based on an aiding and
abetting theory of liability is not a qualifying predicate crime of violence. We need
not address this argument because we agree with the government that Juarez’s
§ 2255 motion is barred by the collateral attack waiver in his plea agreement.
Juarez contends that the waiver is not enforceable because his challenge to his
§ 924(c) conviction and sentence falls within the illegal sentence exception
recognized in United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016).
However, this exception does not apply where, as in this case, the contention is that
the conviction is illegal. See United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555, 562-65 (9th
Cir. 2021) (holding that the illegal sentence exception to appellate waivers does not
apply to challenges to illegal convictions). Because the collateral attack waiver
forecloses § 2255 relief, we affirm the denial of Juarez’s motion. See White v.
Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e can affirm the district court on
any ground supported by the record.”).
We treat Juarez’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16145