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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GAB R IEL C LAR

K-AIGNER , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-36006

D.C . Nos. 3:16-c v-00095-TM B

3:02-c r-00007-SLG-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sha ron L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd B ADE, C i rc uit J

udge s, a nd FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge

. Ga brie l C la rk-Aigne r (“ C la

r k

- A i gne r” ) a nd a c c om

plic e s w e re indic te d for pa rtic i pa ting in two c om

ple te d robbe rie s a nd one a tte m pte d robbe ry of a m ote l i n



# FIL ED
JAN 4 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

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

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Anc hora ge , Ala ska

. Pursua nt to a ple a a gre e m e nt, C la rk-Aigne r ple a de d guilty to two
c ounts of inte rfe re nc e w ith c o m m e rc e b y robbe ry (Hobbs A ct r o b be ry ) in v iola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 1951(a ), a nd t wo c ounts of u si ng an d br andishing a fire a rm during a
c rim e o f viole nc e i n v i o l at i o n of 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c ). Unde r the ple a a gre e m e nt, the gove rnm e nt a gre e d t o dism iss a ll re m a ining c ounts a ga in s t Cl ar k -Aigne r, a nd he ag r e e d to a broa d wa i ve r of h is rights to c olla te ra lly a tta c k his c onvic tion s an d
se nte nc e . T he distric t c ourt se nte nc e d C la rk-Aigne r to 300 m onths’ i m prisonm e nt. C la rk-Aigne r the n b rought a m o tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2255 c olla t e ra lly a tta c king his § 924(c ) c onvic tions, a rguing tha t the y a re u nco n s titutiona l in light of the Supre m e C ourt’ s d e c ision in Unite d State s v . Dav is , 139 S. C t. 2319 (2019). The distric t c ourt d en ied C la

rk-Aigne r’ s m otion. It a d opte d the m a gistra t e judge ’ s fina l re port, whic h
re c o m m e nde d t ha t C la rk-Aigne r’ s m otion be de nie d on the ground, inte r alia , tha t he ha d wa ive d the right to c olla te ra lly a tta c k his c onvic tion in his ple a a gre e m e nt. A de fe nda

nt m a y wa ive h i s r ight to c olla te ra lly a t ta c k his se nte nc e or
c onvic tion. S

e e U nite d State

s v . Abarc a , 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th C ir. 1993). Suc h
a wa ive r is e nforc e a

ble if “ (1) the la

ngua ge of the wa ive r e n c om pa sse s [the de fe nda n t’ s] right to a

p pe al o n the grounds ra ise d, a nd (2) the wa i ve r is k nowingly
a nd volunta

rily m a de

. ” U

nite d State

s v . Goodall , — F.4th

— , 2 021 W L 6132016, a t *5 (9th C ir. 2021) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l q u o t a tion m a rks om itte d)

- 2 -(disc ussing thec lose l y re la te d topic of a ppe a l wa i ve rs). W e ha ve re c ogniz e d tha t a n
a ppe a l wa ive r will not a

p ply if t he se nte n c e is ille ga l

. Se e Unite d State s v . Bible r , 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th C ir. 2007) (a s a m e nde d). B ut t his e xc e p tion d o e s n ot a

pply to
c ha lle nge s to purporte dly ille ga l c onvic tions— suc h a s the c ha l le nge t ha t C la rk-Aigne r
m a ke s he re . Se e Goodall , — F.4th

— , 2 021 W L 6132016, a t *6-8 (e xpla i ning tha t the ille g a l se nte nc e e xc e ption doe s n o t au t h o riz e c ha l le nge s to ille ga l c o nvic tions). W e
re vie w de novo whe the r C la rk-Aigne r h as w ai v e d h is right to c olla te ra l ly a tta c k his § 924(c ) c onvic tions. Se e Bible r , 495 F.3d a t 623 (c iting Unite d State s v . J e ronimo , 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th C ir. 2005)). C la rk-Aigne r’ s ple a a gre e m e n t c onta i ns a broa d c olla t e ra l a t ta c k w a i ve r, with only tw o e xc e ptions: ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l, a nd “ a c h a lle nge to the volunta rine ss of his g u i l t y ple a .” In his brie fing on a ppe a l, C la

rk-Aigne r doe s not
a ddre s s the distric t c ourt’ s e nforc e m e nt of t he c olla te ra l a tta c k wa ive r, a nd he doe s not
ra ise a rgum e nts re la te d to ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l or the volunta rine ss of his guilty ple a . W e the re fore c onc l ude tha t he ha s wa ive d his right to c olla t e ra lly a tta c k his c onvic tions. Se e Abarc a , 985 F.2d a t 1014.

- 3 -Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the d i s t r i c t c o urt’ s de nia l of C la rk-Aigne r’ s § 2255

m otion a s ba

rre d by the c olla

te ra l a t t ack w ai v er in h is ple a a gre e m e n t. Se e id. ; Goodall , —

F.4th — , 2021 W L 6132016, a t *8. AFFIRM E D
.

- 4 -