Court Opinion

ID: 9380997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:45.849143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:29.729805
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30082

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00154-RMP-1

 v.

JEREMY JOHN GILBERT,                            MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jeremy John Gilbert appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 187-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and we dismiss.

      Gilbert contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because

his counsel induced him to plead guilty by providing inaccurate information

regarding the sentence he would receive. We agree with the government that this

claim is not amenable to review on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman,

642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that ineffective assistance of

counsel claims may be considered on direct appeal “only in the unusual cases

where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of

the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a

defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel”). We further agree with the

government that Gilbert otherwise waived his right to appeal his sentence. We,

therefore, dismiss the appeal. See id. at 1260.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                    22-30082