Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0240-01.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. Charles Douglas MIGUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30015
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Jennifer Jane Martin, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ryan Timothy O’Connor, O’Connor Weber, LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M; SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Charles Douglas Miguel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed for violations of the Mann Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and for tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1512(b)(1). We dismiss.

Miguel argues that the district court erred by failing to inquire into the volun-tariness of his guilty plea when, during Miguel’s allocution at the sentencing hearing, he requested a lower sentence than was stipulated to in his plea agreement. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Miguel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal. See id. at 1205-06. Contrary to Miguel’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009), and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, the record belies Miguel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.