United States v. Shehadeh, No. 18-10399 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed after he was sentenced to a mandatory 30 year prison term and before the district court entered an amended judgment ordering restitution. Defendant filed his notice of appeal the day after the district court entered the amended judgment.
The Ninth Circuit held that defendant's appeal was timely because it was filed within fourteen days of entry of the amended judgment. The panel explained that, because the district court had delayed a final sentence by deferring restitution, it had jurisdiction to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea until the final restitution order if he presented a "fair and just reason" to do so. The panel affirmed the district court's refusal to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea because it was knowing and voluntary. Finally, the panel held that defendant's remaining claims are waived and did not consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on appeal.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a criminal judgment in a case in which the defendant (1) moved to withdraw his guilty plea after he was sentenced to a mandatory thirty-year prison term and before the district court entered an amended judgment ordering restitution, and (2) filed his notice of appeal the day after the district court entered the amended judgment. Rejecting the government’s argument that the notice of appeal is untimely because the defendant did not appeal within fourteen days of the district court’s entry of judgment of his custodial sentence, the panel held that where a district court defers its restitution order, a defendant wishing to appeal his conviction and sentence of imprisonment may enter a notice of appeal either within fourteen days following the district court’s entry of the custodial sentence, or within fourteen days of the entry of the amended judgment, which includes the amount of restitution. The panel held that the district court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The panel explained that because the district court had delayed a final sentence by deferring restitution, it had jurisdiction to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea until the final restitution order if he presented a fair and just reason for doing so. The panel concluded that the UNITED STATES V. SHEHADEH 3 district court did not plainly err when it denied the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as it was knowing and voluntary. The panel held that the waiver in the defendant’s plea agreement bars his claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and that the record lacked information required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 where the district court proceeded immediately to sentencing without preparation of a presentence report. The panel concluded that the record is not sufficiently developed to entertain on direct appeal the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
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.