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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c 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). 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT 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. E L E UT E R I O S AT URNI NO R UI Z - S AL OMON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30313 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 38 5-R E -5 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r10, 2012 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E le u te r io S a tu rn in o R u iz - S a lo m o n ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le aa n d h is te n - y e a rs e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir in g to m anufacture m ar i

j uana i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 1(b)(1)(A )( vi i ), 

# FI LED OC T 23 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

8 4 6 . W e a f

f i rm. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of R ui z- S al om on ’ s m ot i on t o w i thd raw h is g u ilty p le af

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . B r i

ggs , 623 F . 3d 724, 727 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e a gr e e w i th the r e a s oni ng of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng R ui z- S al om on ’ s w i thd raw al m ot i on . R ui z- S al om on re peat edl y a ckno w l edged that he ful l y und er st oo d the consequences of hi s gui l ty pl ea . Indeed, atthe pl ea c o llo q u y , h e s ta te d h im s e lf , “I a m p le a d in g g u ilty ju s t o n m y o w n v o litio n . . . .” A cc ordi ng l y, R ui z- S al om on ’ s purpo rt ed re as on s f or w i thd raw i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea w e r e d ir e c tly c o n tr a d ic te d b y h is s ig n e d p le ap e titio n a n d h is s ta te m e n ts u n d e ro a th dur i ng the R ul e 11 pl e ac ol l oquy . S uc h s t a t e m e nt s “ c a rry as tr ong pr e s um pt i on of ve r a c i ty , ” a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s e nt i t l e d t o r e l y on the m i n de ny i ng the w ith d r a w a l m o tio n . U

n i ted S ta tes v. R o ss , 51 1 F . 3d 12 33 , 12 36 –3 7 (9th C i r. 20 08 ); see a l so B r i ggs , 623 F . 3d a t728. R ui z - S a l om on w a s notde ni e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . A l though w e do notor di na r i l y e nt e rt a i n i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s on d i re ctappeal , the re cord i s s uffi ci ent l y devel op ed f orus t o de c i de the pa rt i c ul a rc om pl a i nt s tha tR ui z - S a l om on a s s e rt s he r e . ( W e do no tcom m enton any other bas es of al l eged i neff ec t i ve as si st ance that R u iz - S a lo m o n m a y s u b s e q u e n tly a s s e rt) . Se e U ni te d State s v . R ahm an , 642 F . 3d3

12 57 , 12 59 –6 0 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). F i r s t , nothi ng i n the r e c or d s upport s R ui z - S a l om on’ s a r gum e nttha the r e c e iv e d 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 b e c au s e h is a tto rn e y d is c lo s e d a lle g e d ly pri vi l eged i nform at i on atthe w i thd raw al hear i ng . D ef ense coun se l di d n otsay anythi ng t o the di stri ctcourtt o con t es tor otherw i se un derm i ne the m er i t s of R ui zS alo m o n ’s w ith d ra w al m o ti o n . R ath er , co u n se l v ig o ro u sly a rg u ed o n h is clien t’ s be ha l f , a s s e rt i ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tR ui z - S a l om on di d notunde r s t a nd the c ons e que nc e s of

hi s gui l ty pl e abe c aus e he ha d onl y as i xth gr a de e duc a t i on. T here fore , R ui z- S al om on has notpo i nt ed t o any fa ct s i nd i ca t i ng thathe w as p r e ju d ic e d b y a n y s ta te m e n ts h is c o u n s e l m a d e a t th e w ith d r aw a l h e a r in g . Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7 (19 84 ). S e c o n d , R u iz - S a lo m o n w a s n o t d e n ie d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c onf l i c t - f r e e c ouns e l ba s e d on hi s a tt orne y ’ s a c t i ons i n c onne c t i on w i th the w i thd raw al m ot i on . T o d em on stra t e thathi s r i gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c ou nsel has bee n vi ol at ed, R ui z- S al om on m ustpo i ntt o fac t s i n the re cord show i ng that“ an ac tual confl i ctof i nt er es tadvers el y a ff ec t ed hi s l aw ye r’ s per form ance . ” C uylerv. Sul l i v an , 4 4 6 U .S . 3 3 5 , 3 5 0 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . R u iz - S a lo m o n h a s f a ile d to p o in t to s u c h f

a c ts o rt o e s t ab l i s h h i s d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s a l l e g e d c o n f l i c to f i n t e r e s t . A l th o u g h h e c l a i ms tha tde f e ns e c ouns e l a c t e d a s both “ a dvoc a t e a nd w i tne s s ” i n a r gui ng the4

w ith d r a w a l m o tio n , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o rt th is a r g u m e n t. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l d id nott a ke the w i tne s s s t a nd orothe rw i s e t e s t i f y a ga i ns tR ui z - S a l om on dur i ng the w i thdr a w a l he ar i ng. F i nal l y, w e a ff

i rm the se nt ence . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatR ui zS a lo m o n p o s s e s s e d af

ir e a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is o f f e n s e w a s n o t c le a r ly erroneou s. T he hand gu n thatautho ri t i es di sc ov er ed on the path t aken by R ui zS a l o m o n wh e n h e f

l e d wa s d ry , wh i l e th e g r o u n d s u rr o u n d i n g i twa s we twi th d e w. A u th o r itie s a ls o f

o u n d o th e ro b

je c ts th a t R u iz - S a lo m o n d r o p p e d o n o rn e a rth is sa m e path. B as ed on thi s f i nd i ng , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y e nh ance d R ui zS al om on ’ s s ent ence by tw o l evel s und erU . S . S . G . §2 D 1. 1(b)(1) and di squal i fi ed h im f r o m s a f e ty v a lv e r e lie f

u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 . Se e U ni te d State s v . Sm i th, 17 5 F . 3d 11 47 , 11 49 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). AF F I RME D.