United States v. Kenneth Spratt

603 F. App'x 648
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 2015
Docket13-50254
StatusUnpublished

This text of 603 F. App'x 648 (United States v. Kenneth Spratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Kenneth Spratt, 603 F. App'x 648 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Lamar Spratt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

1. Spratt’s plea agreement contains a general waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. This waiver covers the grounds for this appeal, including Spratt’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.2011), and Spratt’s challenges to his sentence.

2. “The record shows that [Spratt] ■waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily,” United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986 (9th Cir.2009), and we are satisfied that the district court complied with Rule 11 when it accepted Spratt’s guilty plea, United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). And although the district court and the government made minor errors during the colloquy, those errors do not require reversal because they did not affect Spratt’s substantial rights. See United States v. Ross, 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.2008).

3. Finally, we do not consider Spratt’s argument that his counsel was ineffective because, “[a]s a general rule, we do not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal.” Rah-man, 642 F.3d at 1259 (quoting Jeronimo, 398 F.3d at 1155) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Brizan, 709 F.3d 864, 867 (9th Cir.2013).

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Rahman
642 F.3d 1257 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Pascual Dionicio Jeronimo
398 F.3d 1149 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Francheska Brizan
709 F.3d 864 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Ross
511 F.3d 1233 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Watson
582 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jacobo Castillo
496 F.3d 947 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kenneth-spratt-ca9-2015.