United States v. Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-2187
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2187 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:16-cr-00225-RSM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RANDY LEE HALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2026** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Randy Lee Hall (“Hall”) appeals the denial of his

motion to withdraw his plea agreement to Count 2 (assault of a federal officer),

alleging an inadequate Rule 11 colloquy and ineffective assistance of counsel for

* 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). failing to inform him that intent to assault was an essential element. We review the

denial of the motion to withdraw for an abuse of discretion, United States v.

Hernandez, 105 F.4th 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2024), and we may affirm on any ground

supported by the record, United States v. Mongol Nation, 56 F.4th 1244, 1253 n.6

(9th Cir. 2023).

Hall has waived his ability to further contest his guilty plea, as he has already

filed both a direct appeal and a § 2255 motion in which he could have, but failed to,

raise this particular issue (although he raised similar ones unsuccessfully). A

defendant cannot “hold issues back for a string of appeals.” United States v.

Radmall, 340 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Nagra, 147

F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting a late attempt to withdraw a plea, noting that

“[w]hen a party could have raised an issue in a prior appeal but did not, a court later

hearing the same case need not consider the matter”); United States v. Tat, 97 F.4th

1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[R]emand [for resentencing] could not open the door

for the defendant[] to bring new challenges to [his] plea agreement[] that [he] could

have raised all along.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2187