Case ID: f-appx_316/html/0687-01.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. Deangelo WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10743.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 6, 2009.
    Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Thomas P. Mazzuco, Blake D. Stamm, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard E. Hove, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Deangelo Williams appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), and the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. His contentions challenging these decisions fail because “an unconditional guilty plea constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defects.” United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005). Williams’s contention that he pled guilty based on the mistaken advice from trial counsel that he retained the right to appeal the denial of these motions is not properly raised in this direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).

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