USA V. CHARLES MIGUEL, No. 16-30015 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30015 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00110-SI v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES DOUGLAS MIGUEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Charles Douglas Miguel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed for violations of the Mann Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and for tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1512(b)(1). We dismiss. * 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). Miguel argues that the district court erred by failing to inquire into the voluntariness of his guilty plea when, during Miguel’s allocution at the sentencing hearing, he requested a lower sentence than was stipulated to in his plea agreement. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Miguel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal. See id. at 1205-06. Contrary to Miguel’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009), and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, the record belies Miguel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1207. DISMISSED. 2 16-30015
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
