Source: https://openjurist.org/116/f3d/1487/united-states-v-karlic
Timestamp: 2019-12-05 22:04:44
Document Index: 469047190

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 844', '§ 844', '§ 844', '§ 844', '§ 18', '§ 844', '§ 2113', '§ 844']

116 F3d 1487 United States v. Karlic | OpenJurist
116 F. 3d 1487 - United States v. Karlic
116 F3d 1487 United States v. Karlic
No. 96-55413.
Lorenz Vilim Karlic appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Karlic contends that the district court: (1) failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 at his plea hearing; (2) improperly ordered disclosure of privileged information; and (3) did not have jurisdiction to convict him of his offenses.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We review de novo the district court's denial of Karlic's motion, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm.
"For a section 2255 movant to successfully challenge a guilty plea based upon a violation of Rule 11, he must establish that the violation amounted to a jurisdictional or constitutional error or that the violation resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or in a proceeding inconsistent with the demands of fair procedure." United States v. Grewal, 825 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1987). A section 2255 movant "must also establish that he was prejudiced in that he was unaware of the consequences of his plea, and, if properly advised would not have pleaded guilty." See id.; see also United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979).
We reject Karlic's contentions. First, with regard to the alleged Rule 11(e)(2) violation, Karlic has failed to demonstrate that he was unaware of the consequences of his guilty plea. See Grewal, 825 F.2d at 222; Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780. Although the record of the plea proceeding indicates that the district court failed to inform Karlic that he would not be able to withdraw his plea if the government's sentencing recommendation was rejected, the plea agreement illustrates that Karlic was aware of this consequence. The plea agreement states:
Second, regarding the alleged Rule 11(c)(1) violation, Karlic has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the district court's failure to inform him of the correct mandatory minimum sentence for the three counts of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h). At the time of Karlic's conviction, the mandatory minimum for a defendant's first count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) was five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(h). For each subsequent count of conviction under the statute, the mandatory minimum sentence was ten years. See id. The district court, however, informed Karlic that the mandatory sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) was five years for each of the three counts, for a total of fifteen years. Because the district court imposed a total sentence of eleven years for all of Karlic's offenses, no possible prejudice could have resulted from the district court's erroneous information regarding the mandatory minimum sentence for Karlic' § 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) offenses. Cf. United States v. Saclemente-Bejarano, 861 F.2d 206, 210 (9th Cir.1988) (on direct appeal, Rule 11 violation harmless when defendant knows before pleading guilty that he could be sentenced to a term as long as the one he eventually received).
A district court's grant of a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege is proper when a movant's claims put privileged information at issue. See Home Indem. Corp. v. Lane Powell Moss and Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir.1995).
Congress did not exceed its power under the Commerce Clause by enacting 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 or 844(i) because the statutes require the prosecutor to establish a connection to interstate commerce. See United States v. Harris, 108 F.3d 1107, 1108-09 (9th Cir.1996).
In his reply brief, Karlic asserts that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because he did not raise this contention in his opening brief, we will not consider it. See United States v. Birtle, 792 F.2d 846, 848 (9th Cir.1986)
This case is distinguishable from United States v. Pappadopoulos, 64 F.3d 522, 527-28 (9th Cir.1995), in which we concluded that the government failed to establish the jurisdictional requirement because the only interstate commerce connection was the receipt by a private home of natural gas from a company that obtained some of its gas from out of state. Here, Karlic admitted the factual basis for jurisdiction when he pleaded guilty to maliciously damaging banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by means of an explosive in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). See Harris, 108 F.3d at 1109