DocketNumber: 08-10383
Judges: Schroeder, Bybee, Panner
Filed Date: 7/15/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-10383 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00066-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * RAYMOND WILLIAM RONELL, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 14, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and PANNER,** District Judge. Raymond W. Ronell, Jr. pleaded guilty and was sentenced for sexual exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and receipt and distribution of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Owen M. Panner, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Ronell challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Ronell failed, however, to preserve this issue for appellate review because he pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement and made no reservation of rights at the plea hearing. When a defendant pleads guilty without conditions, the plea “constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defects.” United States v. Lopez-Armenta,400 F.3d 1173
, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of Ronell’s appeal. Ronell also challenges sentencing enhancements based on information the government obtained after his guilty plea. There is no bar, however, to using after- acquired evidence to enhance a sentence. “The trial judge has always been permitted to consider the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.” United States v. Belgard,894 F.2d 1092
, 1099 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. -2-