Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-13-06158/USCOURTS-ca10-13-06158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Joseph Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

NICHOLAS JOSEPH RAMIREZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 13-6158 

(D.C. No. 5:12-CR-00090-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Defendant-Appellant Nicholas Joseph Ramirez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and to distribute several controlled substances in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(C), and money laundering in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and (h). Although his plea agreement included a broad 

waiver of appellate rights, he brought this appeal to challenge his conviction on the 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 7, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-6158 Document: 01019182162 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

ground that his counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance in connection 

with his plea. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United 

States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam), 

and counsel for Mr. Ramirez has filed a response opposing the motion. We grant the 

government’s motion and dismiss the appeal, though we do so without prejudice to 

any post-conviction motion Mr. Ramirez may file under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising the 

ineffective-assistance claim he has attempted to assert here. 

Mr. Ramirez expressly waived his right to appeal “his guilty plea, sentence 

and restitution imposed, and any other aspect of his conviction.” Dist. Ct. Doc. 365, 

at 9. As the government notes in its motion, that waiver encompasses a claim of 

ineffective assistance challenging his conviction or sentence. See United States v. 

Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). But if such a claim “challeng[es] 

the validity of the plea or the waiver” itself, the waiver is ineffective. Id. It is solely 

on this basis that Mr. Ramirez opposes the government’s motion. 

Mr. Ramirez’s ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel improperly advised 

him to plead guilty in this case without ensuring—either by timing or through a 

combined negotiation—that the resultant conviction here would not provide the basis 

for a significantly enhanced sentence in a concurrent prosecution in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. Without expressing any opinion 

as to the potential merit of such a claim, we do agree with Mr. Ramirez that this 

challenge to the adequacy of counsel’s representation in plea negotiations appears to 

Appellate Case: 13-6158 Document: 01019182162 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

be a challenge to the validity of his guilty plea within the meaning of our Cockerham

decision. 

But that is not the end of the matter. As our precedent makes clear, claims of 

ineffective assistance should in almost all cases be raised in collateral proceedings 

under § 2255; if “brought on direct appeal [they] are presumptively dismissible, and 

virtually all will be dismissed.” United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 

(10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). And “[t]his rule applies even where a defendant seeks to 

invalidate an appellate waiver based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” United 

States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). Thus, absent extraordinary 

circumstances permitting an ineffective-assistance claim to be brought on direct 

appeal, when such a claim is raised to circumvent an appeal waiver the appropriate 

course is to dismiss the claim (leaving the appeal waiver in force) but preserve the 

defendant’s right to pursue the claim on collateral review under § 2255. See, e.g., 

United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991, 1003 (10th Cir. 2011). 

Accordingly, the proper result here comes down to whether this is the rare case 

where an ineffective-assistance claim may properly be brought on direct appeal. We 

conclude it is not. “[T]his court has considered ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims on direct appeal in limited circumstances, but only where the issue was raised 

before and ruled upon by the district court and a sufficient factual record exists.” 

United States v. Flood, 635 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2011). As the emphasized 

conjunction in Flood points up, both of these conditions must be satisfied before this 

Appellate Case: 13-6158 Document: 01019182162 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

court will hear an ineffective-assistance claim on a direct criminal appeal, and here 

the former is undeniably wanting (the latter is also likely unmet, but we need not 

pursue the matter). The district court, which “should have an advantageous 

perspective for determining the effectiveness of counsel’s conduct and whether any 

deficiencies were prejudicial,” Polly, 630 F.3d at 1003, has thus far had no occasion 

to address Mr. Ramirez’s ineffective-assistance claim. Consequently, the claim 

“must be dismissed without prejudice as improperly raised on direct appeal.” Id. As 

that claim is the only basis for Mr. Ramirez’s opposition to the government’s motion 

to enforce his appeal waiver, we grant the motion. 

The government’s motion to enforce defendant-appellant’s appeal waiver is 

granted and the appeal is dismissed. This disposition is without prejudice to any 

motion Mr. Ramirez may bring under § 2255 asserting the ineffective-assistance 

claim he has improperly asserted on this appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 13-6158 Document: 01019182162 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 4