Court Opinion

ID: 9918745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:00:52.964656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:59.776550
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 16 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                No.   22-50285
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. No.
 v.                                             2:20-cr-00350-RGK-1
                                                Central District of California,
                                                Los Angeles
RUIXUE SHI, AKA Serena Shi,

                Defendant-Appellant.            MEMORANDUM*

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 11, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Defendant-appellant, Ruixue Shi, appeals the district court’s denial of her

motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Shi asserts that the district court erred by

denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The government argues Shi waived

      *
             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).
her right to appeal in her plea agreement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case and do not

discuss them in detail here. The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

      “We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.” United States v.

Medina-Carrasco, 815 F.3d 457, 461 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the “denial of a

motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Peterson,

995 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233,

1235 (9th Cir. 2008)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 472 (2021).

      A waiver of appellate rights “is enforceable if (1) the language of the waiver

encompasses [her] right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the waiver is

knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v. Goodall, 21 F.4th 555, 561 (9th

Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “To discern whether a waiver

is knowing and voluntary, we must ask ‘what the defendant reasonably understood

to be the terms of the agreement when [s]he pleaded guilty.’” Medina-Carrasco,

815 F.3d at 461 (quoting United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th Cir.

1993)).

      “[P]lea agreements are contractual in nature and are measured by contract law

standards.” Goodall, 21 F.4th at 561 (quoting United States v. Clark, 218 F.3d 1092,

1095 (9th Cir. 2000)). We “will generally enforce the plain language of a plea

agreement if it is clear and unambiguous on its face.” United States v. Jeronimo,

                                         2
398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United States v.

Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, in her plea agreement, Shi agreed

to “waiv[e] and giv[e] up any right to appeal [her] conviction,” “with the exception

of an appeal based on a claim that [her] guilty plea was involuntary.”

      We have found that the waiver of the right to appeal a conviction

“encompasses [a defendant’s] claims that the district court erred in refusing to allow

[her] to withdraw [her] plea.” United States v. Minasyan, 4 F.4th 770, 777 n.3 (9th

Cir. 2021). Thus, Shi’s waiver encompasses all issues raised in her present appeal

from the district court’s denial of the motion to withdraw her guilty plea, except a

claim that her guilty plea was not voluntary.

      Accordingly, we must determine if Shi has shown that her plea was

involuntary or unknowing.       In making this determination, we look “to the

circumstances surrounding the signing and entry of the plea agreement to determine

whether the defendant agreed to its terms knowingly and voluntarily.” United States

v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 783–84 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Baramdyka, 95

F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1996)). “A district court is required to inform the defendant

of ‘the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to

collaterally attack the sentence.’” Lo, 839 F.3d at 784 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(b)(1)(N)). Providing that information is “sufficient to find a knowing and

                                          3
voluntary waiver.” Id. (quoting United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir.

2009)).

      Shi argues that her plea agreement was not made knowingly and voluntarily

because: (1) she was involuntarily pressured into pleading guilty by her attorneys,

(2) she did not understand what she was pleading guilty to, and (3) she did not

understand the effects the plea agreement would have on the length of her sentence.

None of her arguments are persuasive.

      While the district court denied a third stipulation to continue the trial, there is

no indication that when Shi pled guilty five weeks before the revised trial date, her

attorneys pressured Shi into pleading guilty because they could not prepare for trial.

Indeed, Shi certified in her plea agreement that “I have had enough time to review

and consider this agreement, and I have carefully and thoroughly discussed every

part of it with my attorney.” One of Shi’s attorneys had been on the case for over a

year. She further certified that “[n]o one has threatened or forced me in any way to

enter into this agreement,” and that she was “satisfied with the representation of [her]

attorney in this matter.” At the change of plea hearing, Shi stated that she was “[v]ery

satisfied” with her attorney’s advice. These statements explicitly contradict what

Shi states in her November 15, 2021, letter, which was the only evidence offered in

support of her motion to withdraw her plea. Shi has not shown that her attorneys

improperly pressured her to plead guilty.

                                            4
      Shi’s claim that she did not enter into the agreement knowingly because she

was “totally ignorant of legal procedure in the United States,” is belied by the record.

Shi is a college graduate who spoke English well enough to address the court on her

own at the change of plea hearing. Shi was at all times provided with an interpreter

that translated the plea agreement and other proceedings into Mandarin. Moreover,

the district court conducted a very thorough Rule 11 colloquy with Shi, in which it

specifically asked whether Shi understood that “[she] would be waiving [her] appeal

of a conviction, and that [she] would be waiving [her] right to appeal the sentence

as long as there’s no more than 20 years.” Shi certified in the plea agreement that

she “underst[ood] the terms of this agreement, and [she] voluntarily agree[d] to those

terms.”

      Similarly, Shi’s claim that she did not appreciate that she faced a possible 20-

year sentence is contrary to the record. In her November 15, 2021, letter she relates

that she thought that her plea would result in a sentence of 68 months and that she

did not know she could get a longer sentence. However, during the plea colloquy,

the court told Shi there was “no agreement” as to “sentencing factors.” Furthermore,

the court asked: “This is a type of offense that under the statute could be punished

by up to a maximum of 20-years imprisonment, a three-year period of supervised

release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, resulting from the offense,

whichever’s greatest, and a mandatory special assessment of $100.              Do you

                                           5
understand that?” Shi replied, “Yes, I do.” The court also explicitly asked Shi if she

understood that she was “waiving your right to appeal the sentence as long as there’s

no more than 20 years.” Shi said, “Yes.” Shi has not shown that her 20-year sentence

was unanticipated.

      Shi’s plea agreement waived her right to appeal any claim other than that her

plea was involuntary, including a claim that the district court erred in denying her

motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Liberally construing Shi’s briefs on appeal to

encompass a claim that her underlying plea was involuntary, we determine that her

guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.

      The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          6