UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C ARLOS M EJIA-QUINTANILLA, AKA W ilfre do Oliva -C a stro, AKA Sle e py ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-15899

D.C . Nos. 3:16-c v-03591-C RB

3:11-c r-00293-C RB -2 Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Franc isc o ORDER

B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, IKUTA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s . Appe lle e ’ s pe tition for pa ne l re he aring (Dkt. 62) is GR ANTED. The m e m o randum d i sposition file d Se pte m b e r 21, 2021, is withdra

wn. It m ay

not be c ite d by or to this c o urt or a

ny distric t c ourt of theNinth C irc uit. A ne w m e m o randum d i sposition is file d sim ulta ne ously with thefiling of this orde r. The pa rtie s m ay file pe titions for reh e aring a nd pe titions for rehe a

ring e n ba n c in re sponseto thene w m e m orandum disposition, a s a llowe d

by the Fe de ra l R

ule s of Appe l lat e Proc e dure . 

# F IL ED AUG 11 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSN 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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C ARLOS M EJIA-QUINTANILLA, AKA W ilfre do Oliva -C a stro, AKA Sle e py ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-15899

D.C . Nos. 3:16-c v-03591-C RB

3:11-c r-00293-C RB -2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2021 Subm ission Va c ate d Fe brua ry 3, 2021 R e subm itte d August 26, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, C hie f Judge , a nd IKUTA a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos M e

jia -Quinta

nilla a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his a m e nde d m otion to vac ate his c onvic tion a nd se nte nc e unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291, 2253, a nd 2255(d), a

nd we dismiss the 

# F IL ED AUG 11 2022 M OLLY C. 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.a

ppe a l be c a

use it is ba

rre d by the a ppe lla te wa ive r in M e

jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s ple a a gre e m e nt. 1 M e jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s writte n ple a

a gre e m e nt e xpre ssly wa i ve d his right to a ppe a l or c olla

te ra lly c ha lle n ge his c onvic tion or se nte n c e . M e jia -Quinta

nilla wa s c onvic te d of a

viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 924(j)(1) a nd (2), whic h ha s the e le m e nt of viola ting 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ). The viola tion of § 924(c ), in turn, ha s the e le m e nt of c arry ing a nd using a

fire arm during a nd in re lation to a c rim e of viole nc e , in this c a se , m urde r in viola

tion of C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 187. M e jia -Quinta

nilla se e ks to c h a lle nge this c onvic tion on the ground tha

t he is a c tua lly

innoc e nt of viola

ting § 924(j)(1), be c a

use he c ould not ha

ve viola te d § 924(c ) (an e l e m e nt of § 924(j)(1)). Spe c ific a l ly , he argue s tha t pursua nt to re c e nt Supre m e C ourt c a se s, § 187 m urde r is not a

c rim e of viole nc e unde r § 924(c ). W e re je c t his c ha lle nge . B e c a use the la ngua ge of M e

jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s a ppe l late wa ive r e nc om

pa sse s his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion for viola ting § 924(j), the

a ppe lla te wa ive r bars

1 M e jia -Quinta

nilla doe s not dispute

tha t his a ppe lla te wa ive r wa s e nte re d into knowingly

and volunta

rily . 2M e

j ia -Quinta

nilla ’ s c ha lle n ge to his c onvic tion

. Se e Unite d State s v . Goodall , 21 F.4th 555, 561 (9th C ir. 2021), c e rt. de nie d , No. 21-7486 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2022)

. 2 M e jia -Quinta

nilla argue s tha

t de spite his a

ppe lla te wa ive r, he re ta i ne d

the right to c ha lle nge his § 924(j) c onvic tion be c a u se his c l a im

of a c tua l innoc e nc e is ba se d in pa

rt on theSupre m e C ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t one of the sta

tutory de finitions of “ c rim e of viole nc e ” is unc onstitutiona lly void for va gue ne ss. Se e Unite d State s v . Dav is , 139 S. C t. 2319 (2019). M e jia -Quinta

nilla argue s tha

t, pursua nt to C lass v
. Unite d State

s , 138 S. C t. 798 (2018), he m ay ra i se this c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge be c a

use he did not e xpre ssly

wa ive c onstitutiona

l c la im s in his a ppe lla te wa i ve r. W e disa gre e . Eve n a ssum ing tha t M e jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s argum e nt qua lifie s a s a

c onstitutiona

l c h a lle n g e to his c onvic tion, C lass doe s not sta nd for the proposition tha t a n a ppe lla te wa ive r m

ust e xpre s sly

wa ive the right to bring c onstitutiona

l c l a im s in orde r to ba

r a ppe a l of suc h c la i m s. R athe r, C lass he ld tha t a guilty ple a a lone doe s not inhere ntly ba r the a ppe a l of a c onvic t ion, 138 S. C t. at 803, a

nd note d tha

t it wa s undispute d in C

lass that the writte n ple a a gre e m e nt in tha

t c a se did not waive the de fe nda nt’ s a p pe a l, se eid. at 807. Goodall ’ s re a soning a

nd c onc lusion doe s not c onflic t with C lass , a nd we are bound

2 B e c a use we de c ide on this ground, we do not a ddre ss M e

jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s argum e nt tha

t his fa ilure to ra ise his c la im of a c t ua l innoc e nc e on dire c t re vie w is e xc use d. 3by

our pre c e d e nt to hold tha t M e jia -Quinta

nilla ’ s a ppe lla te wa ive r is e nforc e a

ble he re . DISM I SSE D.

4