T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M I GU EL M ARTI NEZ- ALEJ AN DREZ , a. k. a. M i gu elM art i nez A l ej andrez, a. k. a. Mi g u e l Ma rt i n e z , a . k . a . Mi g u e l A. M art i nez, a. k. a. M i gu elA l ej andrez M art i nez, a. k. a. M i gu elA l ej andro M art i nez, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10560 D . C. N o . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 6 6 - SBA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S aundr aB . A rm s tr ong, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r8, 2011 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A S H I M A , a n dG R A B E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . M i gue l M a rt i ne z - A l e

j a ndr e z appe a l s f

r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on a nd



# FI LED NO V 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10560 2 3 0 -m o n th sen t en ce i m p o sedfo r b ei n g a d ep o rt edal i en fo u n di n th e U n i t edS t at es, in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r , b u t w e r e m a n dto th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o rr e c t th e ju d g m e n t. M a rt i ne z - A l e

j a ndr e z c ont e nds tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byf

a i l i ng t o pur s ue as t a tut e of l i m i t a t i on de f

e ns e ort o c ont e s tthe 16 -l evel enhancem ent . H e f urther c on t ends thatthe appeal w ai ver i n h i s pl ea a gr e e m e ntdoe s notba rthe s e c l a i m s be c aus e the w a i ve rw a s notknow i ngl ya nd vo l un t ar i l y m ade. A l tho ug h the appeal w ai ver a l l ow s M art i nez- A l ej andrez t o rai se an in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im in a2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , it e x p r e s s ly b a r s th e in s ta n t ap p e a l. See U ni ted States v. N

un ez , 22 3 F . 3d 95 6, 95 9 (9th C i r. 2000) ( w a i ve rof

r i ghtt o appe a l c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e appl i e s t o i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s, tho ug h such cl ai m s m aybe ra i se d i n a col l at er al proceedi ng s) . F urtherm ore, the re cord re fl ec t s thatM art i nez- A l ej andrez’ s w ai ver w as kn ow i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y m ade. T o the ext entM art i nez- A l ej andrez argues tha thi s w a i ve rw a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a rybe c aus e of hi s c ouns e l ’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e , w e d e c lin e to c o n s id e rth a t c o n te n tio n o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. See U ni ted States v . R ahm an , 64 2 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 20 11 ).10- 10560 3 I n a c c or da nc e w i th U

n i ted S ta tes v. R i vera -Sa n ch ez , 222 F . 3d 1057, 1062 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , w e r e m a n dth e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s th a t it d e le te f r o m th e ju d g m e n t th e r e f e r e n c e to s e c tio n 1 3 2 6 ( b ) . See U ni ted States v. H erre ra-B lan co , 2 3 2 F .3 d7 1 5 , 7 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e m a n d in g s u as p o n te to del et e the re fe re nce t o sec t i on 13 26 (b)) . D IS M IS S E D ; R E M A N D E D to corre ctju d gm en t.