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. M ADY C H AN, AKA M a ddy , AKA M andy , AKA M anny ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-15503

D.C . Nos. 2:15-c v-01367-W B S

2:96-c r-00350-W B S-5
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B
. Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KATZM ANN, ** Judge
. M a dy C ha n a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his M otion to Va c a te , Se t Aside , or C orre c t a

Se nte nc e by

a Pe rson in Fe de ra l C ustody pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 2255. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
M AY03 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Honora

ble Ga ry S. Katz m a

nn, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.A wa ive r of a de fe nda nt’ s right to a

ppe a l or c o l late ra lly

atta c k a c onvic tion doe s not pre c lude a subse q u e nt c la im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l in whic h the d e fe nda

nt c a lls into que s tion his e ntry into thea gre e m e nt tha

t c onta ine d the
wa ive r. W

ashington v . Lampe r t , 422 F.3d 864, 869-70 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a use C ha n a rgue s tha t he involunta

rily and unknowingly

e nte re d into theple a

a gre e m e nt that c onta ine d the wa ive r a s a re sult of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, we have jurisdic tion to he ar C ha

n’ s c la im
. C ha n’ s a rgum e nt fa ils on them e rits, howe ve r, be c a u se he did not prove

tha t his re pre se ntation “ fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss.” Stric k

land
v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688-96 (1984). From the outse t, a s the distric t c ourt found, C h an e xpre s se d prim ary c onc e rn for othe r fa m ily m e m

b e rs who ha d a lso be e n c ha rge d. Spe c i fic a lly , C ha

n wa nte d to obta in dismissa l of the c ha rge s a ga inst othe r fa m ily

m e m be rs a nd a lso wa

nte d to pre s e rve a

hom e for his fa

the r. B e c a

use he wa s a lre a dy

se rving a long se n te nc e for
a c onvic tion in the

Northe rn Distric t, a

voiding this c onvic tion wa s of m uc h le ss signific anc e to C ha

n tha n it m ight ha

ve be e n in othe r c irc um sta nc e s. The ple a
a gre e m e nt re pre se nte d the m ost de finite m e ans of dismissing the c ha rge s a ga inst C ha n’ s fam ily

m e m be rs a nd pre se rving the hom e . While a m otion to dism

iss for a Spe e dy Tria l Ac t v i olation c ould ha ve be e n pursue d, the distric t c ourt c o nc lude d that “ the re wa s ne ve rthe l e ss a risk tha t the c o urt would de ny

the m otion a

nd 2pe titione r would losethe a bility to prote c t his fa

m ily m e m be rs.” The distric t
c ourt’ s findings we re not c le arly e rrone ous. A de fe nda

nt’ s re pre se n tation is not “ c onstitutiona lly de fe c tive ” be c a

use he

“ la c ke d a c ry sta l ba ll” tha

t would “ give an a c c ura te pre dic t ion of the outc om e of [the ] c a se .” Turne r v . C

alde ron , 281 F.3d 851, 881 (9th C ir. 2002). Tha t W arrine r did not sta

te that the outc o m e of a

pote ntia l dism i ssa l m otion wa s a b solute ly
c e rta in did not rende r his re p re se ntation of C ha n ine ffe c tive
. C ounse l wa s only unde r an obliga

tion to provide C ha

n with thea

bility to “ m ake a re a sona

bly inform e d de c ision whe the r to a c c e p t a ple a offe r.” Id. at 880. W arrine r e ffe c tive ly inform e d C ha n of the e ffe c t of the ple a a gre e m e nt a nd, in doing so, provide d the
ne c e ssa ry inform a tion to m ake an inform e d de c ision to a c c e p t the ple a . W e de c line to broa de n the sc ope of the c e rtific a te of a ppe a la bility to inc lude C ha n’ s unc e rtifie d c la im s. The fa ilure to file a m otion to dism

iss a t a n e arlie r point in tim e did not pre se nt a

m ore se rious ine ffe c tive n e ss c la im tha n the c l a im disc usse d a

bove . C ha

n wa s inc arc e ra te d a

ny way , a nd it wa s not unre a sona

ble to le t sle e ping dogs lie . As for the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to hold a n e vide ntia ry he aring, C ha

n did not ma

ke a showing tha

t the re we re a d ditiona l fa c ts tha t ne e de d to be de v e lope d. AFFIRM E D.

3