Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0778-01.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. Raymond William RONELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10383.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 14, 2010.
    Filed July 15, 2010.
    Roger T. Nuttall, Ph.D., Law Offices of Nuttall & Coleman, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and PANNER, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Owen M. Panner, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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