617 Fed.Appx. 715 (9th Cir. 2015), 14-10432, United States v. Madden

Docket Nº:14-10432
Citation:617 Fed.Appx. 715
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the U.S. Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV. For Rodriguez Madden, Defendant - Appellant: Michael Ryan Pandullo, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV.
Judge Panel:Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT,[***] District Judge.
Case Date:June 19, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 715

617 Fed.Appx. 715 (9th Cir. 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODRIGUEZ MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-10432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 19, 2015

Submitted, San Francisco, California June 11, [**] 2015.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00149-KJD-CWH-3. Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the U.S. Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV.

For Rodriguez Madden, Defendant - Appellant: Michael Ryan Pandullo, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV.

Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEABRIGHT,[***] District Judge.

Page 716

MEMORANDUM[*]

Rodriguez Madden (" Madden" ) appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and dismiss the appeal.

Madden argues that in calculating the Guideline range and sentencing him at its low end, the district court improperly included a two-level enhancement for obstruction and excluded a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Madden waived the right to appeal on this basis. See

United States v. Spear, 753 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2014). Specifically, the plea agreement includes an explicit waiver of Madden's " right to appeal any sentence imposed within or below the applicable Sentencing Guideline range as determined by the Court," which plainly means that Madden waives the right to appeal the district court's determination of the Guidelines range. Further, Madden " does not contend that his waiver was unknowing or involuntary." See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011). And even if Madden had raised this argument on appeal, we would conclude that this waiver was knowing and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP