Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal RAMADAN, aka Marc Badr Alayche; Daniel Alayche; Yolla Hassan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Robert J. Keenan, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, USSA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Victor Sherman, Esq., Sherman & Sherman, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BAER , Senior Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamal Ramadan appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramadan’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court acted within its discretion when it rejected Ramadan’s post-plea declaration and credited Ramadan’s testimony at his plea hearing. See United States v. Nostratis, 321 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Castello, 724 F.2d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1984) (“The [district] court [is] entitled to credit [defendant’s] testimony at the Rule 11 healing over her subsequent affidavit.”) (citations omitted); Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.1989) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”) (citation and alteration omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.