Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benga Akanni OYENIRAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-02
Citations: 586 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 13-50357
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benga Akanni OYENIRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benga Akanni OYENIRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50357.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Diana Kwok, Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Benga Akanni Oyeniran, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benga Akanni Oyeniran appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Oyeniran contends that his guilty plea is invalid because it was not knowing and voluntary. We review de novo whether a plea was voluntary, and we treat the question of whether a plea was knowing as a factual matter to be reviewed for clear error. United States v. Sharp, 941 F.2d 811, 815-16 (9th Cir.1991), superseded by statute on other grounds, 18 U.S.C. § 3663. In both the signed plea agreement and at the plea colloquy, Oyeniran certified that he understood his plea, had carefully and thoroughly discussed it with his counsel, and had voluntarily agreed to its terms. Those certifications "carry a strong presumption of truth," Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 821 (9th Cir.2012), and Oyeniran's claim that this presumption is overcome here because he did not understand the nature of the conspiracy charge is belied by the record.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.