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. DAM IEN W ILLIAM S, AKA Goldie C a g e , AKA C hristophe r W illia m s, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10014

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00414-HDM -PAL-1
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 13, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , C L IFTON, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc u i t Judge s. De fe nda nt Da m ie n W illia

m s a ppe a ls from his judgme nt a fte r the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to withdra w his guilty

ple a . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of De fe nda nt’ s m otion to 

# FIL ED FEB 02 2017 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.

* * 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withdra

w his guilty

ple a for a buse of disc re tion, Unite d State s v . Yamashiro , 788 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th C ir. 2015), a n d re vie w “ findings of fa c t supporting the distric t c o urt’ s e x e rc ise of its disc re tion . . . for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State s v . Mc Tie rnan , 546 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. A de fe nda

nt m ay withdra w a guilty ple a be fore se nte nc ing if “ the de fe nda nt
c an show a

fa ir a nd just re a son for re que sting thewithdra wa l .” Fe d. R
. C rim . P. 11(d)(2)(B ). An attorne y ’ s fa ilure to pre dic t a c c urate ly a de fe nda nt’ s se nte nc e will not c onstitute

a “ fa ir a nd just re a son for re que sting thewithdra wa l” unle ss the
attorne y “ grossly m isc ha ra c te riz e d ” the possiblese nte nc e and the de fe nda nt de m onstra

te s tha t this “ pla usibly c ould ha ve m otiva te d his de c ision to ple a d guilty .” Unite d State

s v . Dav is , 428 F.3d 802, 808 (9th C ir. 2005); se ealso United State s v . Briggs , 623 F.3d 724, 729 (9th C ir. 2010). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in c onc l uding tha t the sixty -four-m onth diffe re nc e be twe e n De fe nda nt’ s c ounse l’ s pre dic te d se nte nc e of 111 m onths a nd De fe nda nt’ s re c e ive d se nte nc e of 175 m onths did not rise to the le ve l of a

“ gross
m isc h ara c te riz ation,” suffic i e nt to c onstitute “ a fa ir a nd just re a son for re que sting the w ithdra

wa l ” of De fe nda

nt’ s ple a . Se eBriggs , 623 F.3d a t 729 (a ffirm ing the de nia l of a

de fe nda nt’ s m otion to withdra

whis guilty

ple a whe n the de fe nda

nt
e xpe c te d a se nte nc e of 200 m onths a nd re c e i ve d a

se nte nc e of 324 m onths); Unite d
2State

s v . Garc i a , 909 F.2d 1346, 1348–49 (9th C ir. 1990) (a ffirm ing thede nia l of a de fe nda nt’ s m o t ion to withdra

w his ple a

whe n the de fe nda

nt e xpe c te d a

se nte nc e of e ight y e ars a

nd re c e i ve d a

se nte nc e of ove r twe nty

y e ars, re a soning, “ i t is we ll
e sta blishe d tha

t a n e rrone ous pre dic tion by a de fe n se attorne y

c o n c e rning
se nte nc ing doe s not e ntitlea de fe nda nt to c h a l le nge his guilty

ple a . ” ). De fe nda

nt
wa s “ aware tha

t he fa c e d a

substa ntia l te rm of inc a rc e ration,” Briggs , 623 F.3d a t 729, a nd his ultim

ate se nte nc e wa s still “

we ll within . . . the sta

tutory m a xim um .” Unite d State s v . Oliv e ros-Orosc o , 942 F.2d 644, 646 (9th C ir. 1991). Thedistric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing De fe nda nt’ s m o tion to withdra

whis guilty ple a . W e de c line to a ddre ss De fe nda nt’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l c la im
. Se eUnite d State

s v . Mc K e nna , 327 F.3d 830, 854 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ C la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l a

re ge ne ra lly

ina ppropria te on dire c t a

ppe a l.” ). W e are not pe rsua de d by

the a dditional argum e nts ra i se d in De fe nda nt’ s pro se supple m e nt to c ounse l ’ s brie f. De fe nda nt’ s se nte n c e wa s not e nha nc e d unde r the
re sidua l c la

use of U.S.S.G § 4B 1.2(a )(2), de fe ating his a rgum e nt re ga

rding the
a pplic a bility of J ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015). His rem a ining
argum e nts a lso la c k m e rit. AFFIRM E D.
3