N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GREGOR

Y SILVEIR

A, AKA Gordon M ic ha e ls, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50223

D.C . No. 5:15-c r-00036-VAP-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 7, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a n d FAB ER , *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED AUG 10 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble David A. Fa

be r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of W e st Virginia , sitting by de signa tion.Gre gory Silve ira (“ Silve ira ” ) a

ppe a ls from

the Distric t C ourt’ s de nia l of his
m otion to withdra

w his guilty

ple a s a nd his subse que nt m otion for re c onside ration. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1 Pursua nt to his pre -indic tm e nt ple a a gre e m e nt, Silve ira

“ wa iv[e d] and g[a

v e ] up a ny right to a p pe a l [his] c onvic tions on the offe nse s to whic h [he ] . . . ple a d[e d] guilty .” “ A de fe nda

nt’ s wa ive r of his a

ppe lla t e rights is enforc e a

ble if (1) the la ngua ge of the wa i ve r e nc om pa sse s his right to a

ppe a l on thegrounds ra ise d, a nd (2) the wa ive r is knowingly and volunta

rily m a d e .” Unite d State

s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). W e will de c line to e nforc e a
wa ive r m e e ting thepre c e ding re quire m e nts “ only if the distric t c ourt fa i le d to
c om ply with Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11, the c ourt inform e d the de fe nda n t tha t she re ta ine d

the right to a

ppe a l, the se nte nc e did not c om port with the t e rm s of the ple a

a gre e m e nt, or these nte nc e viola t e d the la w.” Unite d State

s v . Brizan , 709 F.3d 864, 866 (9th C ir. 2013). Silve ira ’ s wa ive r m e e ts the re quire m e nts for e nforc e m e nt. First, Silve ira ’ s
wa ive r is suffic ie ntly broa d to c ove r this a ppe a l. Se e

, e . g. , Brizan , 709 F.3d a

t 866 (“ W e have c onsiste ntly

re a d ge ne ra l wa ive rs of the right to a p pe a l to c o ve r a ll

1 As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we re sta te the m he re only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 2a

ppe a ls, e ve n a

n a p pe a l from the de nia l of a m otion to withdra wa guilty ple a .” (c ita tion omitte d)). Se c ond, on its fac e , the tra nsc ript from

Silve ira ’ s ple a

he aring indic ate s tha

t Silve ira knowingly

and volunta

rily a gre e d to ple a d guilty

and wa ive his a ppe lla te rights. Se e Unite d State s v . J e ronimo , 398 F.3d 1149, 1157 n.5 (9th C ir. 2005) (a sse ssing whe the r a wa ive r wa s knowingly

and volunta

rily m a de by looking a t the ple a -he aring tra

nsc ript), o v e r

rule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v . J ac obo C astillo , 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). Silve ira ’ s a

rgum e nts a ga inst e nforc e m e nt of his a ppe a l wa ive r—

his ple a he aring viola

te d R ule 11a nd he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l— are not pe rsua sive . C o nta

ry to his c la im

othe rwise , Silve i ra ’ s ple a he aring c om

plie d with R ule 11’ s re q

uire m e nt tha

t the re be an a de quate fa c tua l ba sis for a de fe nda nt’ s ple a . Whe n de te rm ining if R ule 11 is sa

tisfie d, we “ re vie w only

the re c ord of the ple a proc e e ding.” Unite d State s v . Portillo-C

ano , 192 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th C ir. 1999). The offe nse that Silve ira ple a de d guilty to, 18 U.S.C
. § 1956, re q uire s tha t the d e fe nda

nt ha ve : “ (1) e nga ge d in a

fina n c ia l tra n sa c tion whic h involve d proc e e ds from

spe c ifie d ille ga l a c tivity , (2) kne w the proc e e ds we re from ille ga l
a c tivity , and (3) inte nde d the transa c tion to promote the ille ga l a c tivity .” Unite d State s v . W e bste r , 623 F.3d 901, 908 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita t ion a nd om ission in origina l om itte d ). At the ple a he aring, Silve ira

a gre e d tha

t he ha d: (1) “pa

rtic ipate d
3in the ope ration of a n ille ga l ga

m bling ope ration” ; (2) a c c e pte d $ 2.75 million from
a “ gam bling c lie nt” ; (3) kne w tha t the a c c e pte d m one y

“ re pre s e nte d proc e e ds from [an] ille ga l sports be tting”busine ss in whic h he pa rtic ipate d ; (4) tra

nsfe rre d portions of the a c c e pte d m one y on thre e oc c a sions; a

nd (5) “ i nitia

te d the s e thre e transfe rs with theinte nt to prom ote the c arry ing on of a n ille ga l ga

m b ling ope rat ion, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1955.”This c onstitute s a suffic ie nt fa c tua l ba sis for Silve ira ’ s ple a s. Fina lly , we re vie w ine ffe c tive -a ssista n c e -of-c ounse l c la im s “ on dire c t a ppe a l only in the unusua l c a se s whe re (1) the re c ord on a ppe a l is suffic ie ntly

de ve lope d to pe rm it de te rm ination of theissue , or (2) the le ga l re pre se ntat ion is so inade quate that it obviously de n ie s a

de fe nda nt his Sixth Ame n dm e nt right to c ounse l.” Rahman , 642 F.3d a

t 1259–60. Here , ne ithe r of the s e re quire m e nts a re m e t. Furthe rm ore , to the e xte nt Silve ira re que sts tha

t we re m a n d this c a se to the distric t
c ourt for furthe r de ve lopm e nt of the re c o rd, we de ny it, a s “ we will not re m and a
c a se from dire c t a ppe a l for fa c t -finding re lat e d to a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of
c ounse l c la im , but a llow a de fe nda nt to pursuethe issue in distric t c ourt c olla te ra l proc e e dings.” J

e ronimo , 398 F.3d a

t 1156 (c ita

tion omitte d). Ac c ordingly , Silve ira ’ s a

ppe a l is D ism i sse d
.

4