Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deangelo WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-06
Citations: 316 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 06-10743
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deangelo WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 687–687

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deangelo WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 6, 2009.
Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Thomas P. Mazzuco, Blake D. Stamm, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard E. Hove, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Deangelo Williams appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams appeals the district court's denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. His contentions challenging these decisions fail because "an unconditional guilty plea constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defects." United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.2005). Williams's contention that he pled guilty based on the mistaken advice from trial counsel that he retained the right to appeal the denial of these motions is not properly raised in this direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.