United States v. Julien Richardson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: April 29, 2022
• Docket: 21-3003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 21-3003 September Term, 2021 Filed On: April 29, 2022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

v.

JULIEN RICHARDSON, APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:20-cr-00031-1)

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, RAO, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons set forth below, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Appellant Julien Richardson appeals his sentence for conspiring to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He pled guilty in the district court pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver. That waiver is valid and enforceable, as Richardson knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Jackson, 26 F.4th 994, 998-99 (D.C. Cir. 2022). No. 21-3003 September Term, 2021

The appellate waiver does not bar ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Richardson has asserted such a claim here. Although we often remand such claims to the district court to address in the first instance, Richardson does not even state a colorable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we will dispose of the claim ourselves and dismiss Richardson’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Marshall, 946 F.3d 591, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk