USA V. JEREMY GILBERT, No. 22-30082 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-30082 D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00154-RMP-1 v. JEREMY JOHN GILBERT, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Jeremy John Gilbert appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 187-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, * 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). and we dismiss. Gilbert contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel induced him to plead guilty by providing inaccurate information regarding the sentence he would receive. We agree with the government that this claim is not amenable to review on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be considered on direct appeal “only in the unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel”). We further agree with the government that Gilbert otherwise waived his right to appeal his sentence. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. See id. at 1260. DISMISSED. 2 22-30082

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.