USA V. JOHN SCHNEIDER, No. 18-30187 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-30187 D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00077-SPW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN HENRY SCHNEIDER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. John Henry Schneider appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for concealment of bankruptcy assets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Schneider’s request for oral argument is, therefore, denied. Schneider argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective at sentencing for failing to object to (1) the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1; (2) the introduction and content of victim impact statements; and (3) the district court’s alleged failure to properly consider and weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We decline to address these claims on direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed to permit determination of the issues, and Schneider’s legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied him his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). We decline to reach Schneider’s additional claims because he did not specifically and distinctly raise and argue those issues in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 18-30187

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.