Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0640-01.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. Douglas John FITZGERALD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-30200.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Kevin Thomas Maloney, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Michael John Romano, Joseph Brian Sy-verson, Frank Phillip Cihlar, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Gregory Victor Davis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas John Fitzgerald, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas John Fitzgerald appeals pro se from his guilty-plea conviction to one count of attempting to evade and defeat tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fitzgerald contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. He argues that he had two fair and just reasons for withdrawal. First, he contends that he was unaware that his plea agreement did not preserve his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on Speedy Trial Act grounds. Second, he argues that he was unaware that he had a viable defense based on an absence of willfulness. The record belies these contentions. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Mayweather, 634 F.3d 498, 504 (9th Cir.2010).

To the extent that Fitzgerald contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to consider that contention on direct review. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).

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