From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. DeJarnette

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 15, 2003
63 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2003)

Summary

upholding waiver of appeal and collateral attack

Summary of this case from United States v. Murray

Opinion


63 Fed.Appx. 284 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Alexander DEJARNETTE, Jr., Defendant--Appellant. No. 01-10595. D.C. No. CR-99-00351-SI. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 15, 2003.

Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.

Filed December 9, 2002

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding.

Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Alexander DeJarnette, Jr. appeals pro se the denial of his motion to correct the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for transporting minors with intent to engage in prostitution, transporting an adult with intent to engage in prostitution, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a), 2421, and 1512(b)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

DeJarnette relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) for his motion contending that his sentence was incorrectly calculated because four of his prior convictions should have been treated as two. The district court properly ruled that § 3742 does not provide authority for such a motion. The district court also properly rejected the motion as an untimely Rule 35(c) motion, see United States v. Barragan-Mendoza, 174 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir.1999) (discussing seven-day time limit).

DeJarnette's jurisdictional challenge fails because his indictment was filed within thirty days after his arrest and was not procedurally time-barred. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).

Moreover, we enforce DeJarnette's plea agreement's waiver of appeal and collateral attack, foreclosing each of his contentions. See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998). He received a sentence consistent with the Rule 11(e)(1)(C) agreement, and there is no evidence that the waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing or voluntary.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. DeJarnette

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 15, 2003
63 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2003)

upholding waiver of appeal and collateral attack

Summary of this case from United States v. Murray
Case details for

U.S. v. DeJarnette

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Alexander DEJARNETTE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 15, 2003

Citations

63 F. App'x 284 (9th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

United States v. Murray

A waiver of appellate rights is enforceable if it encompasses the grounds raised in the challenge, and is…

Sarishamshajian v. Kijakazi

Moreover, courts within this Circuit have routinely held that reversal is warranted under analogous…