From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Haas

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 8, 2023
No. 19-17399 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023)

Opinion

19-17399

02-08-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY HAAS, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 6, 2023 Phoenix, Arizona

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-01405-LRH 2:10-cr-00499-LRH- GWF-1 Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Defendant appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence for discharging a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Defendant contends that the predicate offense-attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act-is not a crime of violence under § 924(c). See United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022). We affirm on a different ground: that Defendant waived his right to a collateral challenge in his plea agreement.

We review de novo the district court's denial of habeas relief, United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2003), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 1995). Defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to a plea deal in which he waived all rights to a collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "An appellate waiver is enforceable if '(1) the language of the waiver encompasses [the Defendant's] 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) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 2666 (2022). Defendant's waiver bars his claim that his conviction was legally defective, regardless of unforeseeable intervening caselaw. See id. at 558, 562-63 (also holding that the "illegal sentence" exception to appellate waiver does not apply to challenges to illegal convictions).

AFFIRMED.

[*] 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).


Summaries of

United States v. Haas

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 8, 2023
No. 19-17399 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Haas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY HAAS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 8, 2023

Citations

No. 19-17399 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023)

Citing Cases

United States v. Barker

However, in the § 2255 context, nonprecedential opinions by the Ninth Circuit seem to have construed similar…