USA V. SALVADOR ARREDONDO-PILLADO, No. 14-10505 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 24 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-10505 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00275-LRHPAL-1 v. SALVADOR ARREDONDO-PILLADO, AKA Chapo, AKA Jose Pillado Moreno, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: CHRISTEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,*** District Judge. Salvador Arredondo-Pillado appeals his conviction and sentence, and moves * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. Arredondo-Pillado pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government containing a waiver of appeal rights that he concedes bars this appeal if valid. ArredondoPillado challenges his waiver of appeal rights solely on the ground that it was not knowing or voluntary because the Government failed to disclose, prior to the execution of his plea agreement, evidence which he contends the Government was obliged to turn over pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Arredondo-Pillado’s Brady argument fails because, as he concedes, the evidence he identifies is neither exculpatory nor material impeachment evidence, and hence is not Brady material. United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). Because no Brady violation occurred, and because Arredondo-Pillado raises no other argument challenging the voluntariness of his appeal waiver, we enforce it and affirm. 1 See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007) 1 Because we affirm, Arredondo-Pillado’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is DENIED. 2 (affirming the defendant’s sentence pursuant to the enforcement of an appeal waiver). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
